Since November 2012, when Police Authorities were abolished and Police and Crime Commissioners introduced, I have been making regular Freedom of Information requests for the meeting papers of Cambridgeshire Police’s Force Executive Board.

While the Police Authority was in existence information on proposed significant changes to policing would be pro-actively published online in Police Authority papers. Proposed new policies or changes to the service would be made available and discussed in public. Performance and monitoring information would also be pro-actively published.

One effect of the transition to Police and Crime Commissioners has been that information which was previously routinely made public on a regular basis has ceased to be available. Prior to November 2012 many key papers considered by the Force Executive Board went on to become openly published Police Authority Papers

I have been informed by the Police that they had understood Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright had a “transparency agenda” and that “everything we sent across would be published”, however they were then told “the commissioner will not release most papers”.

My requests have all been made in public using mySociety’s Freedom of Information website WhatDoTheyKnow.com so the requests and responses are available publicly online: November 2012 and before, December 2012, January 2013, February 2013, March 2013, April 2013, May 2013.

I had previously, in February 2012 requested the force publish the papers for the period since June 2011 which prompted a substantial update of the material the force publishes online; as has some of my subsequent requests.

My Freedom of Information requests have been rejected on various grounds; primarily citing an intent to publish the information in the future (although no plans for such publication have been provided, and no publication of the meeting papers beyond agendas and minutes has occurred). Latterly, in relation to the April 2013 meeting my request has been deemed vexatious, citing the fact I have been making regular requests for the papers of the meeting.

Bizarrely the force are now inviting requests for certain board papers which they describe as “open” via requests which are not formal FOI requests*. This makes no sense at all as any request for information in writing is a valid FOI request; it is up to the force internally how it wishes to deal with any request.

The force have also claimed to have updated their publication scheme a number of times in response to my requests; however their website has throughout suggested they have adopted an ACPO model publication scheme, unamended. Their practice in terms of proactive publication also does not appeared to have changed.

For a period the force maintained that Force Executive Board meetings each approved the previous meeting’s agenda for publication; though they have now admitted this was false.

What I Think Should Happen

Agendas for Force Executive Board should be published in advance of the meetings. Ideally this would be in the form of a living document, getting more precise as the meeting date approaches. Alternatively there could be an “agenda plan”; a note of the major agenda items at the next meeting at the end of each meeting, as well as the publication of the agenda itself when it is produced, presumably a few days, if not a week, before the meetings.

Meeting papers which are considered “open” should be pro-actively published alongside the agendas, or as they become available.

Draft minutes should be published as soon as they are available.

Meeting papers which are considered “closed”, determined on a clearly set out basis, such as documents where the force consider exemptions in the FOI Act which would allow them not to release them in full on request apply to could not be published pro-actively; but could, still be the subject of FOI requests at which point redaction would have to be considered. In such cases I would suggest any covering papers, summaries, or similar ought be considered for proactive release separately from documents as a whole.

I fully understand that redaction can be time consuming. I think that it is a flaw in the Freedom of Information Act that it does not contain a limit on the amount of redaction time a request can result in a public body having to spend (a point I have made previously).

I think the force ought take a position of pro-actively publishing by default as much information as possible; this would reduce the number of FOI requests it would be necessary to make and those requests which were needed could be more precise and focused.

I stress that meeting agendas have not been available online prior to my making any requests for them and other papers; had they been I may have been able to narrow my requests. In my latest request, relating to the May 2013 meeting papers, I have ,just requested the agenda initially with a view to making further requests if required.

Press Interest Demonstrating Public Interest

Major articles in the local press have been based on material present in Force Executive Board papers, the following Cambridge Evening News articles are examples:

Bike theft in Cambridge is out of control, police boss says – 6 March 2013

Police chief’s praise for idea to arrest ‘change fatigue’ – 1 February 2013

Cambridgeshire police may divert 101 non-emergency calls to staff at home – 11 March 2013

There is also a public interest in the Police and Crime Commissioner’s attendance, and use, of the Force Executive Board.

Having my Request Deemed Vexatious

While this came as quite a shock, it is just a technical term used in the Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately if you get involved in debate about how our society should be run this is the kind of thing which you risk facing, it’s another one to add to the list along with being decried as “anti-police” by my local police sergeant when suggesting policing priorities at the North Area Committee and being thrown out of a Police Authority meeting for asking for a copy of the papers they were discussing.

The post Request for Cambridgeshire Police Board Meeting Papers Deemed Vexatious appeared first on Richard Taylor.

On the morning of Wednesday the 1st of May I went on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire with Paul Stainton to discuss Cambridgeshire Police’s roll out of TASER weapons to non-firearms officers including neighbourhood, traffic and response officers.

Presenter Paul Stainton reported Cambridgeshire’s Chief Constable Simon Parr had been invited on the show but had declined saying he did not know enough about the subject. Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner also failed to make himself available for interview.

I think it is appalling that neither of these senior figures who should be leading our police force in Cambridgeshire were prepared to publicly justify and defend their decision.

Transcript

Paul Stainton

Coming up this morning. We talk TASERs; set’um to stun.

Over a hundred more police on the streets of Cambridgeshire are set to stun.

Is it too much? Is it effectively arming the police? Is it a necessary evil though?

Police, do they need this protection? Your thoughts this morning; 0845 9252000 8133 on text, or should we go the whole hog and just put a gun in their holster?

[..trail for other news.]

It’s seven minutes past seven on your biggest breakfast show this morning and let’s talk TASER.

Cambridgeshire police are expanding the number of officers trained to use TASER weapons. Fifty five specialist firearms officers currently use TASER which emits an electric shock to temporarily stun and incapacitate offenders. Now a further one hundred and twenty officers, many of whom work in local policing, will be trained to use the TASER.

Richard Taylor is a Cambridge based blogger and an anti-TASER activist. Morning Richard.

Richard Taylor

Good morning Paul.

Paul Stainton

Well what’s wrong with keeping our policemen safe as they go about their duty?

Richard Taylor

I’ve got no problem at all with proportional policing. If I go to an airport, go to Heathrow, or to some of the mainline police stations in London I see armed police walking around. I’ve got no problem with police being armed in proportion to the threat that they and the public face or where the police decide it is appropriate to have some sort of show of force for deterrence reasons. But there’s no argument along those lines being put forward by the police today for arming neighbourhood police in Cambridgeshire with TASER weapons.

Paul Stainton

Do you see it as effectively arming the police in Cambridgeshire?

Richard Taylor

I’m certainly concerned we’re going along that road. We’re moving away from having policing by consent towards policing by force. I’m very concerned about how that is going to affect the relationship between the police and the public and how it might actually make policing Cambridgeshire much harder to do. If you’re going to go down the road of policing by force then perhaps our current thin blue line would not be sufficient to cope with that.

Paul Stainton

Well Paul Davis is with us as well, he’s a spokesperson on firearms for the Police Federation and a Cambridgeshire Police Officer. Morning Paul.

Paul Davis

Morning. Morning.

Paul Stainton

Why do so many officers in Cambridgeshire need a TASER?

Paul Davis

I wouldn’t say it’s so many, I think what the force have done is look at it in terms of their strategic threat and risk assessment and said actually fifty five isn’t enough, we cover a large geographical area, our officers face a risk on a daily basis, from members of the public, the types of incident our officers are going to, and they’ve looked at that in the round and said I think we need more TASERs to assist our officers.

Paul Stainton

And some officers I hear are having to go out on their own, is that part of the problem here?

Paul Davis

I think that with reduced resources, in terms of cuts in being made in policing the inevitability of that is more officers may find themselves being worked single crewed. That has an impact on that officer going out doing their daily business and it has to be right that we have to take that into account when we’re equipping those officers to go out on the streets.

Paul Stainton

So safety of the officers is paramount. But it is a step away, isn’t it, from arming the police?

Paul Davis

I don’t think so. I think it’s another menu of options for the officers, it enables them to deal with members of the public. In terms of .. let’s look at TASER, it’s a less lethal option for dealing with those individuals that don’t want to come peacefully.

Paul Stainton

There you go Richard, it’s a much easier option.

Richard Taylor

I think one of the things that was said there was this is about cuts and changes to the police force. I think that’s probably right. Our armed policing is now merged with neighbouring forces so the armed policing units might well be further away. Now I’d like to see TASER only with those units, but they need to be easily accessible.

I’d also ask who’s given the police the authority to do this? Where’s the political leadership? The Home Secretary hasn’t said that, the current Home Secretary hasn’t said she wants to see more police armed with TASERs and we haven’t heard anything from our Police and Crime Commissioner on this. Our Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright has just washed his hands of the issue saying it’s operational but I very strongly disagree with that. This is a strategic change for policing, it really changes the face of policing and the feel of policing and I think it’s absolutely scandalous that our Police and Crime Commissioner hasn’t personally taken the decision on this and he isn’t defending it this morning.

Paul Stainton

Paul, who’s made the decision?

Paul Davis

I think it’s quite right, operational decisions are made by the Chief Officer of that particular force area. It’s quite right there shouldn’t be any political interference with an operational policing decision.

Paul Stainton

When is a TASER deployed? What’s the reason for it? When would it come out?

Paul Davis

Serious threats to a member of the public or a police officer.

Paul Stainton

And that has obviously happened because you feel the need to arm another hundred?

Paul Davis

Well we’ve had another .. since 2011/12 we’ve has over a hundred and thirty officers in Cambridgeshire who have been subjected to an assault or a sort of what we call a near miss in the work place and that’s not acceptable. If TASER enables them the opportunity to deal with a member of the public, it creates distance between themselves and the individual to protect themselves and the member of the public that has to be right.

Paul Stainton

And what happens when you launch the TASER? How do they physically work?

Paul Davis

It affects the central nervous system. People always talk about the 50,000 volts, it’s about the amps, and the amps are really really really low. It’s nought point somethings. It affects the central nervous system and basically it disables the individual.

Paul Stainton

In some cases it does cause problems doesn’t it?

Paul Davis

It’s inevitable that aftercare is one of those things and officers have to react to whatever circumstances there are in dealing with that individual.

Paul Stainton

But I suppose if it incapacitates a criminal and keeps the public and police safe then surely Richard, that’s worth it, isn’t it?

Richard Taylor

Well Cambridgeshire Police have said this morning that TASERs don’t cause injuries* but when the barbs are fired into you that does cause an injury in itsself and then when you lose all voluntary control over your muscles you can’t control how you fall down and how you might hurt yourself when that happens. There are also questions about how TASER affects people who are ill, or on drugs, and police officers are not going to know the details about the person before they fire the TASER at them.

Of course I want the public and the police to be safe; that’s behind my argument as well, I want only the officers who are very well trained and experienced, the specialised firearms units, using these weapons. The reason I want to see that is to keep the public safe.

Paul Stainton

What do you suggest then if not TASERs. How do we keep public safe, how do we keep officers who might have to work in rural areas safe?

Richard Taylor

Well we focus on the British tradition of policing by consent; we keep a good relationship between the police and the public so the police and the public are working together. Where necessary, where there are areas of high violent crime, which no one is suggesting we have actually got in the neighbourhoods of Cambridge where we’re now going to see these TASER officers deployed than then you put in the appropriate resources where they are necessary; but we’re not seeing that kind of risk and threat assessment as the argument the police are using.

Essentially the police have all these TASERs in the cupboard and they’ve decided to hand them out to officers.

Paul Stainton

Is that the case Paul?

Paul Davis

I think Richard has made a good point there. They’re in a cupboard, not being used. But also I’ll put this to Richard, when was the last time he faced a person in anger?

Richard Taylor

I haven’t. But I think this is a question for society as a whole, it’s not just a question for the police. Now the police input is very valuable but we’ve all got to decide how we want our country policed and to what degree we want to see our police force armed.

Paul Stainton

What’s it like going up against somebody on your own Paul? Without a TASER

Paul Davis

It’s not very nice. It’s not very nice. At the end of the day we all do a very very difficult job protecting the public on a daily daily basis, you know I’ve been out of the operational field for about twelve years now and I still continue to see the stories of where officers are being injured. There was an incident yesterday in Manchester, two officers stabbed by an individual. Look at the incident outside Buckingham Palace, they used a TASER to stop somebody waving knives about where there were members of the public at risk. It has to be right that officers are given the right equipment to go out and deal with the ills of society.

Paul Stainton

Paul, thanks for coming on this morning. Paul Davis spokesperson on firearms for the Police Federation and a Cambridgeshire Police Officer and Richard Taylor a local blogger and anti-TASER activist. Where do you stand on it? 0845 9 25 2000 Should we give police every weapon we can in order to protect themselves and the public or are there some lines we should never cross?

We did invite Cambridgeshire Police Chief Constable Simon Parr to speak to us on the show this morning. He declined our request due to not knowing enough about the issue. We also invited the Police and Crime Commissioner Sir Graham Bright or his deputy onto the show but he’s at a conference and not able to speak to us either. A lead officer from Cambridgeshire Police on TASER is on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire later this afternoon.

What do you think?

* “There have not been been any injuries or medical problems as a result of using the stun guns on people,” from a BBC News article citing Cambridgeshire Police.

Handling of the News Release by Cambridgeshire Police

The debate, and articles in the local press, occurred before the details were posted on Cambridgeshire Police’s news webpage. The BBC published a story online on the 1st of May outlining the future intent of the force to arm 120 non-firearms officers with TASER, however this is not news, in January 2012 I wrote an article: 120 Non-Firearms Officers to be TASER Trained in Cambridgeshire following a report to a Police Authority committee.

On April 30 Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership was told an announcement of the date on which use of TASERs in Cambridge by neighbourhood police would “go live”. I wonder if the news the police intended to release on the 1st of May was that date, or perhaps even it has been suggested to me, the roll out may actually be occurring as of the 1st of May. Cambridgeshire Police, despite employing specialist communications staff, have made a complete hash of getting whatever message they were planning to get out, to the public of Cambridgeshire. I suspect perhaps they have been distracted from their core role in attempts to give the story to selected friendly members of the media first, perhaps in an attempt to create relationships with the press, seeking to reduce negative coverage, or even perhaps to try and improve the chances articles published only re-present the police position as others don’t have access to information on which to comment in detail.

On the morning of the 1st of May the Cambridge News and Peterborough Telegraph have published article suggesting the roll-out begins as of the 1st of May:

• Beat officers now armed with Taser stun guns in Cambridge – Cambridge News
• Twenty four police officers armed with Tasers will go on patrol in Peterborough from today (Wednesday) – Peterborough Telegraph

The Cambridgeshire Police News release just talks about future plans, it does not make clear the TASER roll out has begun.

Hopefully what has actually happened, or been announced, today will become clear.

The post Responding to Cambridgeshire Police Plan to Issue TASER to Non-Firearms Officers appeared first on Richard Taylor.

A meeting of Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership held on the 30th of April 2013 decided to spend £5,000 on rewards for people, primarily teenagers, responsible for “anti-social behaviour” in the city. The rewards may include boat trips and trips to residential activity centres. One of the stated aims of the project is:

Decrease in offending behaviours in the young people worked with

Cambridge City Council leader, Liberal Democrat Cllr Tim Bick, voted in favour of the proposals, alongside representatives of the Fire Service, NHS, County Council and the voluntary sector. Cambridgeshire Police did not support the project and abstained though did not speak against it.

The funding distributed by Cambridge Community Safety Partnership, and used for the rewards scheme, comes largely via Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright. The Commissioner is ultimately responsible for the taxpayer’s cash involved, so it will be interesting to see if he steps in to veto the rewards for anti-social behaviour scheme when he hears about it.

Members of the partnership were told rewards for committing anti-social behaviour had been tried in the past with the result of keeping recipients out of the criminal justice system. At no point during the debate did any of those considering if this was a good thing to do, or a good way to spend public money, consider the impression it would give to young people who were not causing a problem to the society in which they live.

My view is that rewarding anti-social behaviour in this way sends completely the wrong message.

The Police and Crime Commissioner provides Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership with money to spend as they see fit on their projects. The Commissioner he has announced via his draft Police and Crime Plan he is to run a series of “star chambers” at which he will challenge those spending money on his behalf to try and determine if they have been achieving value for money. As far as I can see the Commissioner has not yet made clear if he will conduct this scrutiny of how the cash he is responsible for is being spent in public.

The money is to be spent via Cambridge City Council’s Children and Young People’s Participation Service (CHYPPS); a group of council officers who often stand around on play grounds looking to see if there are children who need help playing; and I recently spotted five of their staff with one child on the council’s playboat on Jesus Green.

Reference:

• P 17 of the Meeting Papers (PDF)

The post Rewards for Anti-Social Behaviour in Cambridge appeared first on Richard Taylor.

UK Police Officer Carrying a TASER

Chief Inspector Neil Sloan of Cambridgeshire Police told a meeting of Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership held on the 30th of April 2013 that a police announcement of the date from which neighbourhood officers will begin to be routinely armed with TASER weapons was “imminent”.

Chief Inspector Sloan told the partnership that the police would issue a press release naming the date in advance of the use of the weapons by non-firearms officers “going live”. The Chief Inspector noted it was probably not wise of him to have used the phrase “going live” in relation to TASER deployments.

The statement was given in answer to a public question I asked, querying why despite Chief Inspector Sloan telling the partnership in December 2012 neighbourhood officers in Cambridge would begin routinely carrying the weapons from January 2013 this had not actually happened.

Chief Inspector Sloan evaded giving any further update to the partnership, despite them having asked previously about proactive publication of information on the use of TASERs in the city by non-firearms officers. The only thing Inspector Sloan added was a claim that his statements in December were accurate at the time he had made them.

While the meeting was in progress, but well after the public speaking slot had concluded, I received a call from BBC Radio Cambridgeshire inviting me onto their breakfast show at around 7am the following day (Wednesday the 1st of May). They explained they were inviting me on to respond to an expected announcement by Cambridgeshire Police relating to an expanded roll out of TASER.

This led me to wonder if Chief Inspector Sloan was badly prepared for the Community Safety Partnership meeting and unaware of quite how imminent the police announcement would be. Unfortunately once the public speaking slot has passed there are no options for the public to contribute to the meeting so I was unable to provide the partnership, and Chief Inspector Sloan, with an update.

I have asked Cambridgeshire Police to get their announcement online early tomorrow so that those, like me, who wish to comment on it, can do so from an informed position:

.@cambscops Can you get your TASER announcement online early tomorrow. I’d like to respond from informed point of view on BBC Cambs ~7am.

— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) April 30, 2013

At the time of writing, ~16.00 on 30 April, the Cambridgeshire Police News webpage does not list the TASER roll out press release.

On the 28th of April the police officer who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on TASER related matters revealed that nationally 10% of officers are now TASER trained:

RT @chestermansimon:Nationally 10% are currently #taser trained. < Stat. behind today’s newspaper articles on TASER bit.ly/15U1QXX

— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) April 29, 2013

Cambridgeshire Police has around 1,300 police officers; it will be interesting to see what proportion of those the force plans to arm with TASER when it reveals its latest plans.

Cambridgeshire Police have had a number of false starts having announced an intent to roll out TASER before In January 2012 a plan to arm 120 non-firearms officers with TASERs was announced but was not carried out; perhaps as a result of questions from the public, elected representatives, and the police authority.

My Key Points

• I cannot see a clear political mandate for this roll out of TASER to more police officers. In 2008 the then Labour Home Secretary announced she would like to see all front line officers armed with TASER; however this didn’t happen, it was resisted by the public, elected representatives and police authorities.

  There has been no clear statement from the current Home Secretary, Theresa May, on her, and her Government’s view on arming more non-firearms officers with TASERs.

  Locally our Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright has washed his hands of the issue, declaring it “operational” and refusing to comment on the grounds he does not get involved in operational matters. My view is that the degree to which our front-line police, response officers and neighbourhood officers, are routinely armed with TASER is not an operational matter, but a key strategic one. Strategic questions which directly impact people’s first hand experience of the police don’t come much bigger than this, it’s without question in my view a subject on which the Police and Crime Commissioner should be taking a decision, particularly given the vacuum in terms of national leadership on the issue.

• I’m concerned about the way this change will impact on the relationship between the police and the public in the UK. One of the great things about this country is our routinely unarmed police force, who police by consent, not by force. I don’t want to see a move towards policing by force. I fear that a country policed by force will be harder to police, and we might well require more police in that situation. I think it’s a great thing that we live in a relatively civilised country which can, currently, be policed effectively by a very thin blue line of largely unarmed officers..

The Community Safety Partnership

Cambridge Community Safety Partnership is a group including the City and County Council, the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Police, Probation, NHS bodies, a representative of the voluntary sector, Magistrates, and more. It is responsible for setting, and monitoring progress against the city’s policing and wider “community safety” priorities and spending money, largely provided by the Police and Crime Commissioner provides it with, though Cambridge City Council and other partners also support its work in various ways.

See Also

• Opposing More UK Police being Armed with TASERs – Letter to my MP, David Howarth, September 2007.
• All UK Front Line Response Police to Carry TASERs – My article following the November 2008 announcement by the Home Secretary.
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority – December 2008 – First discussion of TASERs by Cambridgeshire Police Authority following the Home Secretary’s Announcement.
• The Role of Police Authorities in Decisions to Extend TASER Deployment
• Encouraging Liberal Democrats to Act Locally on their National TASER Policies – February 2009
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority Dodge my TASER Questions – May 2009
• TASERs for Non-Firearms Police – includes tables showing the number of TASERs for non-firearms officers distributed to forces.
• Cambridgeshire Police Worst In Country for Accidental TASER Discharges
• Non-Firearms Officers Account for a Third of TASER Usage
• Me discussing the TASER rollout to non-firearms officers with James Whale on LBC radio.
• Home Affairs Select Committee Session on TASERs – December 2010.
• Prodding the Home Office to Resume Publishing Statistics on TASER use by the Police January 2011
• Large Rise in UK Police TASER Use – December 2011
• My article reporting Chief Constable Simon Parr to expand the force’s TASER use – December 2011.
• Cambridgeshire Police Propose More TASER Trained Officers – December 2011
• Cambs Chief Constable Would Overrule Police Authority on TASER Deployment – December 2011
• 120 Non-Firearms Officers to be TASER Trained in Cambridgeshire – January 2012
• Cambridge Police Commander Skeels on TASERs and Knives – March 2012
• Responding to Police Federation Calls for All Officers to be TASER Armed – June 2012
• Debating UK Police TASER use on BBC Radio Wales – October 2012
• Cambs Police and Crime Commissioner Bright Dodges TASER Questions – November 2012
• Neighbourhood Police Officers in Cambridge to Routinely Carry TASER from January 2013 – December 2012
• Opposing UK Increasing Police TASER Roll-Out to Non-Firearms Officers – April 2013

The post Cambs Police Announcement on TASER Deployment to Neighbourhood Officers Imminent appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Residential Boats on Midsummer Common

Cambridge City Council has reportedly used tactics one might expect to see in an episode of Spooks, or used in serious criminal investigations, to probe the living arrangements of those living on boats moored in the city.

Amy Tillson, who lives on a boat on the river, and who represents boaters at meetings with the council, has stated council staff have been monitoring boater’s lights, smoke, and even footprints, at various times of the day and into the evening.

It appears the prime aim has been to determine if boats moored in areas the City Council controls are being used in compliance with the residential boat mooring licences the council issues.

As well as the undercover operation it appears the council has carried out a questionnaire and face to face interviews with boaters, during one of which Amy Tillson has stated an admission of breaching the licence terms was made:

@rtayloruk They also wanted to know if boats are sublet (against the rules too). Some actually told the warden they were renting! oops!

— Amy (@nbwillow) April 29, 2013

Attempts were made to carry out the surveillance surreptitiously; those attending the recent Friends of Midsummer Common AGM were told the council had asked them not to discuss boaters’ compliance with their licence conditions. While the matter was raised anyway by members of the public, the reason for the council’s attempted silencing of the group on this matter was not given during the formal public element of the meeting.

One of the local ward councillors said she was unaware her council required those licenced to moor boats on the city council’s land were required to live aboard them full time:

Astonishing Cllr Reiner unaware her council requires boats moored on common are 1′ residences. Friends of Midsummer Common AGM #live

— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) March 20, 2013

FOI Request

A freedom of information request I made to the council asking them exactly what they’ve been up to, and what they found, was initially met with a denial that they’d been doing any kind of survey of the boats and those living aboard them.

It will be interesting to find out if the activities of boaters have been photographed or filmed by the council to amass evidence and if the spying work has been carried out by the council’s own staff or if private investigators have been brought in.

CCTV Monitoring Riverside Bins

Cambridge City Council has also recently posted new, intrusive, signs on the riverside bins on Jesus Green.

At the West/Central Area Committee on the 25th of April I used the open forum to draw councillor’s attention to these signs, and note I could see no visible CCTV cameras. I questioned if the signs were inaccurate, or if hidden cameras had been deployed. I am awaiting a response from the council.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

Surveillance by councils of specific people, or groups of people, is regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

As of 1 November 2012 amendments to RIPA enacted by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 came into force meaning court approval is now needed when councils wish to conduct spying operations.

It will be interesting to see if the council’s recent activity targeted against those living on boats in the city has been put to magistrates, and if not how the council justifies not doing so.

As yet the details of exactly what the council has been doing have not emerged, I am still awaiting answers to the questions, and freedom of information request, which I have raised.

See Also

I have previously written related articles:

• City Council Spy Cameras Deployed on Jesus Green – 2008
• Articles tagged CCTV and RIPA

The post Council Spooks Deployed Against Boaters appeared first on Richard Taylor.

On the 27th of April 2013 I went on BBC News to talk about UK police TASER use. The interview followed the death of Andrew Pimlott in Plymouth following an incident where a TASER was used. The IPCC have published background information and have stated:

Our investigation will be looking at what information was known to the officers attending the scene; the officer’s rationale for discharging a Taser on a person known to be doused in flammable liquid; whether the discharge of the Taser caused the fuel to ignite; and we will look at training and policies.

Transcript

Presenter: Let’s talk now to Richard Taylor who’s an anti-TASER campaigner. Good afternoon to you. What’s your reaction to this case?

Good afternoon. I’m very happy to see police firearms units, those highly trained and highly experienced officers, have access to TASER to be used as an alternative to a conventional firearm. I hope that what this case does is that it raises questions and starts debate about to what extent should other officers, neighbourhood officers and response officers have the weapons. Because that’s what we’ve been seeing over recent years without any clear debate or clear political decision we’ve seen more and more police officers who are not members of these firearms teams routinely armed with TASER weapons.

Presenter: Why is that a problem? Why are you against them?

I think it’s a problem as one of those the last people who spoke on the piece said it’s about training and experience. Now the amount of training that these normal police officers get on TASER, on the weapon itself, is all-right but they’re not experienced officers they don’t have that breadth of training and experience that the specialised firearms teams have so I would rather the TASER weapons be restricted to just the highly trained firearms units.

One of the problems we’ve got is it’s very difficult for a police officer to know what will happen when they pull a trigger on a TASER. You don’t know whether the person is on drugs; you don’t know how they’ll fall when they lose all voluntary control over their muscles, so quite what happens next after you pull that trigger – there’s a lot of risk involved.

Presenter: We have American experience to draw on as well here of course. They’ve been fired what several million times and there was a government advisory committee which talked of only a couple of hundred complications.

Well what we’re seeing though is an increased use of TASER as more officers are getting these weapons, as these weapons are being deployed more. What I want to see is police use of force being proportional and I would question when we’re seeing more police use of TASER are we actually seeing more violent incidents; I don’t think we are, what’s happening is our police response is changing. I’m opposing that because I really think it might well damage the relationship between the police and the public in this country and really change the way this country feels. We have a tradition of unarmed policing and policing by consent. I don’t want to see us move towards policing by force. I don’t think that any element of a UK police officer’s power and authority should come from the weapons that they are holding.

Presenter: Are they really comparable with guns?

Well they are recognised in law. In law they are treated as a firearm. They are a weapon which our police force uses in that way we need to regulate them and ensure that the police officers who use them are incredibly well trained, that’s where the parallels come in.

You could of course argue that it saves lives or at least stops many incidents escalating.

Well I would… what I would like to see is just the most highly trained officers with them. An officer using a baton really knows exactly what level of force they are using; they are better placed to use a proportional level of force rather than an officer who is merely pressing a button, pulling a trigger, on a TASER and then waiting to see what happens.

Presenter: Richard Taylor, thank you very much.

Afterthoughts

This was the first time I’ve been interviewed live on TV. I didn’t know in advance what would be asked. In retrospect there were a few things I’d have tweaked, for example when looking to the USA I perhaps should have said their style of policing, eg. approaching stopped cars with weapons drawn as a matter of course, is exactly what I want to prevent coming to the UK.

I didn’t really answer the point “you could argue it saves lives” very well; it’s back to proportionality, and I do want to see TASER available to the firearms teams, which are deployed around the country, in quite high densities in some places where the rates of violent and armed incidents are high. TASER ought be available, along with conventional firearms, where they are likely to be needed.

What degree of routine armed policing we have across the country where there is no particular heightened level of need is a strategic political policy question.

We need to balance the benefits access to a TASER or other weapons might give in specific, rare incidents, with the wider impacts such as police-public relations. If we move to a situation where policing by force I fear the country will become harder to police.

See also

• Articles which I’ve written and tagged “TASER”

The post Opposing UK Increasing Police TASER Roll-Out to Non-Firearms Officers appeared first on Richard Taylor.

There has been a longstanding problem with Cambridgeshire Police not answering non-emergency calls in a reasonable amount of time. During 2012 a wait of 45 minutes for a non-emergency call to be answered was reported with further waits of a similar time occurring when callers were then transferred to someone to take details.

At Cambridge’s East Area Committee on the 26th of March 2013 Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright announced the problem had been solved; and all calls are now being answered within thirty, or thirty four, seconds.

If true, this is fantastic. Commissioner Bright reported the issue was simple to solve which raises questions about the competence of the Police Authority and Chief Constable who both failed to deal with it for so long. It sounds as if the solution has been a mixture of new technology and additional staff – enabling calls to be taken by other members of staff at times of peak demand.

Confidence in the Police is hard won and easily lost. If a non-emergency call isn’t answered in a timely manner people reasonably wonder if the police will be able to respond quickly if they are needed in an emergency. Excessive delays on the phone lines also deter people from reporting matters to the police.

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright announced his target of getting all 101 calls answered within 30 seconds at a a meeting of Cambridge’s West/Central Area Committee on the 10th of January 2013; the pledge also made it into his draft Police and Crime Plan published on the 26th of February. In February 2013 the Chief Constable was considering having staff working from home answering 101 calls as a way of meeting the commissioner’s target.

The details of how the improvement in phone answering performance has actually been made are yet to emerge; but even if at peak times some people are not having the matters they are calling up with fully dealt with at least calls from others are being promptly answered so that they can be prioritised appropriately.

During Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright’s presentation to the meeting he said:

Getting people to get in touch with the police and report problems, report perhaps suspicious movements, was a problem because of the length of time it took for people to get through on the 101.

And that was a real problem and I know because I tried it several times before.

I’m pleased to say now you can get through on 101 and speak to someone within thirty seconds.

That is a dramatic improvement because the first time I tried it, it was nine minutes ten seconds.

The idea of that is to encourage people to contact the police in that way.

I thought Police and Crime Commissioner Bright’s statement was astonishing, and I sought clarification:

Richard Taylor:

Could I just try and get some clarification of some of the points Graham Bright made in his presentation there?

Firstly he said we can be guaranteed a response on 101 within thirty seconds – that’s obviously excellent if you’ve managed to do that; but is that really true? Have you got one hundred percent of the 101 calls being answered in thirty seconds.

The real problem wasn’t with the vast majority, it was with a small percentage which were taking a very long time and also getting put through to someone to actually take details about a crime and a second wait. So have you fully addressed those two problems?

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright:

The answer is yes.

Richard Taylor:

Excellent.

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright:

I think we’re looking at about 94% being done within thirty seconds.

Richard Taylor:

Well it’s no then?
It’s no then?

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright:

No it’s not.
Are you going to let me answer the question or are you going to interrupt?
[Member of the public heckles: "he asked you if it was 100%"]

It’s 94% within thirty seconds and if it goes beyond that we’re talking about thirty three or thirty four seconds so lets not be nit-picking about that.

I’ve been to the call centre and they have got numbers up on the wall about how many calls there are coming in; how quickly they’re being answered, and if they’re missed, why.

What they’ve done is quite a simple thing actually; they’ve got a spill over so that when they’ve got a lot of calls coming in it spills over to other people.

It is working.

I’ve been to the call centre in Peterborough, talked to the staff there, congratulated them because I think it’s great what they’ve done.

I can tell you the first time I had a meeting about this I did dial in and it was taking eight minutes then the next meeting I had when they told me they’d solved it I actually sat there and dialled in and it was twenty-seven seconds. So I am really thrilled because it was taking so long, and I know because I tried it.

Richard Taylor:

That’s absolutely fantastic. Brilliant.

Some of my previous articles and actions campaigning, lobbying and drawing attention to this subject:

• Cambridgeshire Police Not Answering Phone – September 2011 article following a Police Authority Scrutiny meeting I observed where problems with phone answering were raised via the police performance report.
• Cambridgeshire County Council Full Council Question on Phone Answering – November 2011, question asked by Cllr Steve Tierney following my suggestion that the issue ought be raised.
• I was a co-opted member of Cambridgeshire County Council’s Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee in December 2011 and raised the issue of police phone answering performance.
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority December 2011 – phone answering was again discussed
• Cambridgeshire Police Getting Even Worse at Answering Phone – December 2011 article reporting my use of the public speaking slot at Cambridgeshire Police Authority’s Scrutiny Committee to stress importance of the subject
• Asking Cambs County Council Police Scrutiny Committee To Chase Cambs Police for Phone Answering Performance Data – June 2012
• I asked a public question to the June 2012 Full Meeting of Cambridgeshire Police Authority this question stated: “Will the full authority take on the work the scrutiny committee was doing monitoring phone answering performance, and in particular take on the committee’s efforts to get information from the police on how badly they were missing their target phone answering times?”. The “answer” did not address the question.
• FOI request to OFCOM on 999 system performance and failures. – July 2012
• Cambridgeshire Police Phone Answering Failures Continue – July 2012
• Ely Neighbourhood Panel – July 2012
• Police Phone Answering Discussed at the East Area Committee – August 2012
• Cambs Police Still Holding Back Phone Answering Data – September 2012
• Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright Speaks in Cambridge – January 2013 – target of answering all calls within 30 seconds announced.
• Draft Police and Crime Plan for Cambridgeshire Published – February 2013 – including pledge to answer all 101 calls within 30 seconds

Thanks to Martin Lucas-Smith for the photo of me questioning Commissioner Bright; via CycleStreets.net

The post 101 Now Answered Within Thirty Seconds Says Police and Crime Commissioner appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Image of the dodgy fax – the only route via which proposed new media regulation laws debated and voted on by MPs leaked out to the public on Monday 18 March 2013.

Two key documents which were debated were not publicly available online from an official source prior to the debate. They are:

• The Draft Charter (to set up a body to recognise any self regulatory bodies which might be set up)
• Amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill (PDF of Scanned Fax)

The Amendments

A scanned fax version of amendments debated were published by Guy Fawkes’ Blog at 15.18 and at 15.25 by Index on Censorship. The fax was timed 14.44 and was to: 902072190107 (reformatted this becomes 9 for an outside line followed by 0207 2190 107). Given the House of Commons switchboard is 0207 2190 3000 that looks like an internal House of Commons number.

At the time of writing, around twelve hours on, the usual official source of amendment papers; the Bill documents — Crime and Courts Bill [HL] 2012-13 page on Parliament’s website is still not providing them. I would expect them to be present under the “Amendment papers” heading. Though confusingly there is an amendment paper dated with the day of the debate, it does not contain the actual amendments debated. In order to check the current amendments had not been appended to the published material I had to go through the crazy process of clicking “continue”, scrolling down a page of text, and clicking continue, a number of times during the day and again before publishing this article. For those who’ve not used Parliament’s website much this is a core element of their unique user experience across the site.

A scanned fax emerging on various websites is not the way this information ought to have been published. It’s important documents like this are available from an official, trusted, source, so they can be easily found and so there is an assurance they are authentic.

It’s not clear if the fax is was a leaked document. If it was an official communication it raises the question of why the Parliament website is not used as the primary means of communication and why our Parliament is still operating in a world where a Fax is even used, never mind, considered the best way to disseminate information to the public.

The Charter

Until after the emergency debate had concluded the only version of the draft charter available was the superceeded version from the previous week it was only after the Prime Minster during his concluding remarks revealed the existence of a new version, agreed by all party leaders, that it was marked superseded online and the new one published. (I used the Gov.UK per-page feedback system to note the document had been superseded and urge this be noted as it later was).

Failure Raised in Parliament

Chris Bryant MP raised the matter in the House of Commons before the debate:

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to do this, but it is all very well to talk about the publication of the draft charter, but it is not available in the Vote Office or in the Library. The Clerk has a copy of it but hon. Members do not have copies of it. It is an odd way of doing business for us to debate something that we have never had an opportunity to see.

The Speaker dismissed Mr Bryant’s complaint:

I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his point of order, that my copy and that held by the Clerk came from the Vote Office. Therefore, my understanding is that copies of the document are lodged in the Vote Office, and I say that only on the basis of my experience. If copies are not so lodged, they most certainly should be. I can deal only with the exigencies of the situation as they arise.

My view is that in the modern world if material of this nature is not available online then in practice it has not been published irrespective of it it has been “lodged” in an an office or not. This being Parliament who knows what “lodged” means or even if the “Vote Office” is an office (it appears to be the “document supply” department).

Mr Bryant’s complaint only extended to the draft charter, and not the failure to publish the amendment papers online.

Confusion

The failure to publish the current versions of the documents caused confusion among many people commenting on proceedings throughout the day. Even those producing BBC’s Newsnight which went out late in the evening quoted from the outdated versions of the amendments rather than those which were actually debated. (Update 19/03/12 this isn’t quite right- see my update in the comments).

An article on Politics Home by it’s Editor Paul Waugh also linked to the outdated documents.

These errors are understandable as Parliament’s official website wasn’t carrying the up to date material.

If professionals, and even our well funded state broadcaster which almost all of us are compelled to fund, don’t know what our MPs are debating, what hope have the public at large who might want to lobby their MPs in advance of the debate and any possible vote?

There are legions of publicly funded staff in the BBC and in Parliament who really ought be getting this sort of thing right. It really is the basics of what they ought be doing, right at the core of the functioning of our democracy.

Does It Matter?

The charter is in draft form, and the amendments are still to go through the House of Lords. It appears the charter also goes further than the government intended in relation to regulation of material online; so we’re in the middle of a process; not having access to the latest version of the documents would be more important had these been final versions.

There was a vote in the Commons on the reading for the second time of clause 21A . Clause 21A is one of those which is in the unofficially published fax but was not on Parliament’s website. It’s really critical that we can easily find out exactly what our MPs have been voting on.

Is how significant the differences between the versions of the charter and the amendments available to the public, and those actually being debated important? (ie does it not matter if the changes are considered “manuscript amendments”?) I’d suggest you have to have the latest version at least just to check how significant any changes are. (See the comments below where I have placed both versions of the clause actually voted on are presented – they are in my view significantly different).

The post Dodgy Fax Only Source of Media Regulation Laws Voted on by MPs appeared first on Richard Taylor.

I have just sent the following email to Cambridge City Council:

I would like to register to use the public speaking slot at Cambridge City Council’s Community Services Scrutiny Committee on Thursday, 14th March, 2013 at 1.30 pm. I would like to ask about a subject which is not on the agenda: the open forum at area committees.

I understand that while not required, it can be helpful to explain in advance what it is I would like to raise:

Over the last year or so I have used the open forum slots at the North, and West/Central, Area Committees to suggest that the committees create a mechanism which enable people to raise matters in public with the committee other than using the “open forum” in person. I received positive responses from many councillors; but no action has been taken; so would like to make the suggestion again, here, centrally.

I think there is an opportunity to make the “open forum” section at the area committees speedier, and more effective. Raising matters online via a public forum could allow some debate and discussion, and perhaps even action, before the meeting. In some cases all that would need to happen at the meeting itsself is for what has happened to be noted. In other cases any discussion at the meeting could be better informed. Accepting items for the open forum via a route other than attending in person might enable those who cannot, or don’t want to, attend themselves to still make use of the area committee system.

As well as general open forum items; I think making suggestions for, and discussing, local policing priorities and publicly holding the police to account for their performance, is a specific area in which it would be valuable to be able to communicate with area committees in public without attending in person.

Elsewhere in Cambridgeshire that the County Council have negotiated a service level agreement with the police and fire service under which they have agreed to respond to matters raised via the ShapeYourPlace.org set of websites within ten working days*. If such an agreement with bodies such as those, and perhaps others, including councils the ambulance service, the wider NHS etc., could be agreed in relation to Cambridge I think this would be useful. I think many matters raised during the “open forum” slots at area committees would benefit from such input from other bodies.

I note when the council previously put resources into creating a North Area Committee Facebook page it didn’t involve other public bodies, and didn’t make the page a formal route though which representations could be made to the committee; had it done so I think it might have been more successful.

I would like to stress I’m not calling for a ShapeYourPlace instance for Cambridge or it’s composite areas. I’d suggest looking to where people are already discussing relevant matters, ie to Facebook, the Cambridge News, Cambridge Cycling Campaign, Cambridge Past Present and Future and others and integrating with their offerings and activities.

Area committees simply accepting correspondence, publishing it, and considering or noting it in public during the open forum would be a significant step.

* http://huntingdon.shapeyourplace.org/how-it-works/

Regards,

–

Richard Taylor
Cambridge

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

The post Opening up the Open Forum at Cambridge Area Committees appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright has today (26 February 2013) published a draft of his Police and Crime Plan for comment.

This is something I and others have been suggesting the commissioner ought do for some time, given he was elected without a detailed manifesto or significant electoral mandate. Had the commissioner been elected with a detailed plan I would have said he would be right to just get on and implement it.

Other Police and Crime Commissioners around the country have been carrying out consultation exercises for many weeks.

Overall the plan appears to me to not show any significant change of direction. This is perhaps unsurprising given the commissioner is still working with staff from the old police authority and he was elected without any manifesto to change anything. There is little evidence of the commissioner’s input in his plan. It appears as if his input is presented in pull out “aside” boxes describing his pledges.

Key Points

• On Local Democratic Priority Setting: p8 of the draft plan states:
  

  People who live and work in the county are able to suggest priorities for policing in their particular area. These ‘people’s priorities’ are set at the neighbourhood panel meetings and enable people to have an ability to truly affect policing at
  a local level. The meetings also allow officers to highlight their achievements in tackling previously-set priorities in a publically accountable way.

  It is positive that locally set priorities and the holding of the police to account at a local level has been mentioned. As there are no “neighbourhood panel meetings” in Cambridge it is unclear to me how this paragraph will affect local police priority setting where I live. Will councillors on Cambridge’s Area Committees continue to set local police priorities and hold the police to account for their performance? I think it is disappointing that the commissioner has not:

  • Insisted that local priorities are set democratically, by elected representatives.
  • Ensured there are ways to suggest, and debate, potential priorities without attending a meeting in person.
  • Made a commitment to help move towards local priorities being evidence based, and set in a quantitative manner.

  I’m concerned that these locally set priorities are dubbed the “people’s priorities”; I would rather they just be “the priorities”. Calling them the “people’s priorities” gives me the impression who ever wrote this plan thinks the police have better things to be doing than what people want.

• On non-emergency (101) call answering: The aspiration to have all calls to 101 answered within 30 seconds, which the commissioner announced at Cambridge’s West Central Area Committee on the 10th of January 2013 has been turned into a “pledge” on p15 of the plan:
  

  I want to see a better and faster response to all telephone calls, not just 999 calls. The aim should be to answer every call in 30 seconds.

• On TASER: The plan does not mention TASER at all, despite the fact TASER is being rolled out to an increasing number of officers in the force area, including neighbourhood officers in Cambridge and dramatically changing the front-line face of policing.
• On PCSOs: The plan states:
  

  A project to review the role of PCSOs within Cambridgeshire Constabulary will be carried out in 2013

  I think this is excellent; the Commissioner indicated he at the last Police and Crime Panel meeting he understands that PCs are better value for money than PCSOs and described his first budget as slightly moving resources from PCSOs to PCs; I would like to see more of this. p25 shows a reduction in PCSO numbers from 195 to 180; though when presenting the budget there was a line about there only being around 180 actually working at the moment which confuses the picture.

• On Trust: The commissioner has not published any plans to improve trust in the police.
• On Burglary: The commissioner has stated in his plan:
  

  All burglaries should be investigated by the police within an appropriate time of the offence taking place. We need to catch burglars. I will be monitoring burglary detection rates.

  This is a little weaker than the “within the day, if not a few hours” that he promised when speaking in Cambridge.

• On Officer Numbers: This section is unclear as two different figures are given for police officer numbers in 2012/13 – 1,370.3 and 1352.4
• On Privatisation: There is no mention of privatisation, or G4S. In terms of outsourcing to save money what is mentioned is: “Strategic collaboration with other forces or local authorities”.
• On Selling Off Police Stations: the plan refer to: “officers and staff moving into partner-owned premises and the sub-letting of unused space in police-owned buildings.” however in this, as with other areas, there is little detail.
• On Openness and Transparency: There are no commitments to operate in an open and transparent manner, for example to publish key performance information, spending data, or meeting papers.
• On the Courts: there is a vague mention of collaboration with the Cambridgeshire Criminal Justice Board, but no details of what the commissioner is seeking. My view is the commissioner ought be pushing for greater transparancy and speedier justice.
• On Cycling: “Cycling” is not mentioned in the draft police and crime plan. “Cycle” is mentioned only as reducing cycle theft is a Cambridge Community Safety Partnership priority. The section on roads policing states: “continue to seek to keep people safe on our roads, whether a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist” and there is “action” on p23 stating: “Participate in…initiatives such as BikeSafe”. This is very light coverage for cycling given the prominence the commissioner has given to his crackdown on so-called anti-social cycling since his election.
• On Police Complaints There is no plan to reform the handling, and monitoring of police complaints. I would like to see much greater transparancy; the police ought publish depersonalised information about complaints, how they were investigated, and what action was taken.
• On Anti-Social Behaviour: p28 appears to suggest that the current level of antisocial behaviour is “1.3%”. What can this possibly mean?
• On Road Injuries:The commissioner has set himself a target to: “Reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions” from the 373 (which appears to be the 2012 figure to November). In my view this is an excellent target, and I would like to see deaths and injuries related used as as a measure of police performance more widely, eg. when looking at violent crime.
• On The Commissioner’s Office: The Commissioner appears to have omitted the costs of his office from the plan, though does state he intends to employ. The plan states: “The Commissioner has pledged to reduce the cost of his office by ten per cent.” but there is no detail on what base line he is using for this despite this being a point questions have been asked about. My view is the expenses and allowances of the police authority members ought not be counted towards the historic cost of the police authority (if that is in fact what the pledged reduction in cost is being compared with).
• On Neighbourhood Watch: The commissioner’s pre-election promise to give Neighbourhood Watch the powers like those London’s Neighbourhood Boards appear to have been dropped. Neighbourhood watch is to receive just £10k from the commissioner’s ~£1m community safety budget.
• Star Chambers: The plan introduces “Star Chambers” stating:
  

  At the star chambers partners will be asked to share information relating to performance, finance and proposals for more efficient working individually, collectively and with new partners

  It is not clear if these will be public, minuted, meetings or just for the benefit of the commissioner. There is no detail and the paragraph looks as if it might have been written by an officer who has no idea what the commissioner is proposing. It certainly doesn’t get anything across to me.

Responding

There is no online mass-deliberation system for discussing and providing feedback on the draft police and crime plan. Comments are invited via phone, fax, email, twitter, and physical mail.

I will tweet a link to this article to the commissioner’s office.

See Also

• My views on what Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner should do

The post Draft Police and Crime Plan for Cambridgeshire Published appeared first on Richard Taylor.

On Thursday the 21st of February 2013 Cambridge City Council debated a Labour proposal to ban super strength lager and cider. I filmed the debate and have posted all the main elements of it online.

Cllr George Owers spoke for the proposal which formed part of the Labour opposition’s “alternative budget” for the council.

The proposal, which was defeated in a vote, involved spending £80,000 over three years, primarily on employing a ‘Reduce the Strength’ Licensing Officer. The Labour explanation stated:

New licensing officer with remit to develop and implement a voluntary code of conduct for local licensees where retailers would agree not to stock high strength beers, lagers and ciders. The officer would have a remit of creating and promoting this code, persuading licensees to sign up, and co-ordinating the campaign with the police, NHS and other local community organisations with an interest in reducing problem and especially street drinking. They would also assist police gather evidence concerning problematic and street drinking for the purpose of potential licence reviews.

During Cllr Owers’ speach he appeared to go futher and call for a ban on super strength lagers and ciders (other than specialised foreign lagers) claiming they kill more people and are more addictive than class A drugs Heroin and Cocaine.

My view is we need to elect councilors who are prepared to use the existing licencing laws and staff. If there is a problem with a particular shop selling super strength cheap drinks then a licencing review can take place and councillors can impose conditions restricting what can be sold.

There needs to be better education, and easy access to health services to help those with addiction problems. We need to treat the underlying problem, not seek to make alcohol slightly harder, and more expensive, for alcoholics to obtain.

Sources

• Meeting papers see item 6(c) for Labour proposals

The post Ban on Super Strength Lager and Cider Debated at Cambridge City Council appeared first on Richard Taylor.

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/super-strength-lager-ban.html/feed 7 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/objection-172-pupil-accommodation-mitchams-corner.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/objection-172-pupil-accommodation-mitchams-corner.html#comments Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:12:48 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5928 Proposal: Mitcham’s Corner Cambridge I have submitted an objection to a planning application to demolish the buildings on Mitcham’s Corner in Cambridge currently housing Staples and Lloyds Bank, replacing them with a commercial space, that Staples and Lloyds are expected to move back into, along with 172 rooms for the largely 16-18 year old pupils [...]

The post Objection to Proposal to Accommodate 172 Pupils at Mitcham’s Corner appeared first on Richard Taylor.

]]>

Proposal: Mitcham’s Corner Cambridge

I have submitted an objection to a planning application to demolish the buildings on Mitcham’s Corner in Cambridge currently housing Staples and Lloyds Bank, replacing them with a commercial space, that Staples and Lloyds are expected to move back into, along with 172 rooms for the largely 16-18 year old pupils attending Bellerbys College in the city.

I am writing to object to planning application 13/0036/FUL

1. As the site is surrounded by a busy, hard to cross, road which feels difficult and dangerous to cycle on I do not think it is an appropriate location for accommodating 172 relatively young students many of whom are expected to be new to the UK and unfamiliar with our roads. I don’t think access to the site is easy or safe enough. I am a regular cyclist and pedestrian on the surrounding roads; it is often hard to cross traffic; cars and buses are often changing lanes as they drive around the gyratory which is hazardous; and the shared use cycle/foot paths are badly signed and hard to understand. As an example one shared use cycle/foot path appears (according to the signage) to stop half way along Croft Holme Lane leaving cyclists attempting to cross three lanes of traffic from a position with poor visibility.
2. I think the proposed new building is too large for, and architecturally out of kilter with, its context. While some effort has been made with its external appearance it is not of high enough quality given its prime location in central Cambridge, very close to the river Cam, Jesus Green and Midsummer Common.
3. Given substantial re-design of road environment in the area; shifting the priority substantially towards pedestrians and cyclists, perhaps a dormitory for young students of the sort proposed could be appropriate on the site; however no such substantial changes are directly proposed as part of the application. To enable a development similar to the one proposed would require improvements to the immediate road environment.
4. I think this site, and the adjacent area, including the space currently occupied by the highway, is one which needs pro-active planning; the improvements needed will not in my view easily emerge as a result of applications coming forward from developers.


Proposed Access to Cycle Park at Mitcham’s Corner Cambridge
5. The application proposes a large cycle park in a basement accessed down steps. This is crazy for a building whose residents would be expected to cycle as a primary means of getting around, and in a city which, given the popularity of cycling, ought be leading the way in requiring high quality cycle parking in new developments like these.
6. The transport assessment states: “residents at this development will be legally restricted to bringing cars to the city”; I think councillors ought investigate this statement. Presumably it means residents will be in breach of a rental agreement or licence agreement if they bring a car to Cambridge.
7. 
   

   Proposal: Mitcham’s Corner Cambridge

   No “Student Departure and Arrival Traffic Management Strategy” has been prepared; it is suggested one might be required as a condition. I find it hard to envisage how students being dropped off and picked up at the start and end of terms will not create a hazard and congestion at the site which is surrounded by a busy and complex road environment.

8. I suggest restricting the permission given to the specific proposed use, by students of Bellerbys college (or similar institutions) and not for example rented on the open market; or used in whole, or part, by other institutions such as Cambridge colleges; requiring any such changes of use to be brought before councillors if they were to be considered in the future. The impact on the surrounding area of similar uses might well be quite different.

[Full name and address]

See Also

• Application 13/0036/FUL on Cambridge City Council’s Website
• Cambridge Cycling Campaign Objection

The post Objection to Proposal to Accommodate 172 Pupils at Mitcham’s Corner appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridge City Council has planted lots of new trees in Cambridge in recent years.

While the majority of the new trees are doing well, some have failed to thrive. A certain fraction of failure is to be expected and is not in itsself a problem; however I would like to see the council rapidly replacing those new trees which have not established themselves successfully. Monitoring and replacement does not appear to be happening; there are many cases around they city where new trees have disappeared, or been badly broken, and no action has been taken in relation to them in well over a year.

The failures may be due to wind damage, vandalism, or perhaps even direct action by those opposing specific planting. In some cases it looks as if wind damage occurred rapidly after the trees went in, so they were not fit for purpose and the council ought to have been seeking a refund or replacement from their supplier – ensuring the taxpayer’s money they spent is not wasted.

The Liberal Democrats ran a high profile campaign relating to the trees which have been planted on Milton Road and have made a huge fuss about the new trees when they went in. Perhaps the run up to County Council elections in May 2013 will provide the impetus for them to get their officers to replace some of the new, but failed, trees?

In October 2011 I noted two trees, perhaps including the one pictured above, on Milton Road were broken – showing that the council is not acting in a timely manner:

Vandalised tree, Milton Road, Cambridge.lockerz.com/s/147021402

— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) October 14, 2011

Another broken tree on Milton Road, local resident tells me it was the wind. ???lockerz.com/s/147022035

— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) October 14, 2011

I have been seeking to raise this problem with local councillors in public at the North Area Committee throughout 2012 and into 2013. Councillors have not shown any interest. At one point the Executive Councillor for the Environment, Tim Ward, promised to investigate the City Council’s policy on the matter, but he refused to report back to the committee when the chair chased up the action – all he would tell the the committee was that he had written to me. What I was sent by Cllr Ward was a forwarded message from City Council officer Alistair Wilson stating:

All newly planted trees are inspected annually by Kenny McGregor, who will identify trees that have failed, assess any replacements needed, detail for repair any stakes or ties that may be broken, and to ensure that those trees that have established are added to the cyclical maintenance programme.

We will also respond to any reported damage and make repair.

Mr McGregor is a city council tree officer; one of many people the council employ as part of their tree team (which just manges tree work carried out by contractors).

I followed this up with a further question to the North Area Committee on the 31st of January 2013 saying that letting me know what the council’s policy is isn’t addressing the problem I had raised of new trees failing and not being replaced in a timely manner.

Further Examples

Two Trees on Fraser Road are examples where the main trunk has been broken:

In some cases such as those shown above there is a year or two’s growth following significant damage, the trees are recovering, but growing into poor quality trees. Where major failures occur in the first couple of years after a tree is planted I think it makes sense to replace them.

Cllr Ward replied to me at the January 2013 North Area Committee asking me to identify specific trees – however I think I had already given enough examples to demonstrate that the council’s stated policy is not being followed. While the city council are employing a large team of tree officers I think they ought be the ones identifying the trees which have failed. I think if councillor Ward wanted to put the onus back on the public perhaps he could, but such a move ought be accompanied by getting rid of some of the tree officers and reducing the size of the council and council tax bills.

Cambridge City Council has refused to publish its database of trees, and associated records of inspections and works. It may be that from April 2013 the new “dataset” provisions in the Freedom of Information Act could be used to prise this information out of the council which will make it easier for Cambridge residents to monitor what the council is doing in relation to the city’s trees.

While asking my questions at the area committee I had identified the trees mentioned in this article so it appears to me councillors are just being evasive and my efforts to prompt councillors to get these trees replaced are just going around in circles.

The root of the problem is, as so often, we need to elect better councillors.

Trees on the Commons

The problem of new trees failing and not being replaced is not limited to trees on the highway; but also affects trees on the city’s green spaces.

For example:

A badly broken tree on Midsummer Common:

Sites of failed new trees- Stourbridge Common:

Using the Area Committees

At the first North Area Committee meeting at which I sought to raise this Chairman Todd-Jones introduced a one item per person policy so I used my opportunity to suggest the committee accept correspondence enabling many matters to be dealt with outside the meeting and simply reported to it. This got the support of some councillors (as it did when I suggested it in the West-Central area too) and Cllr Todd-Jones said he would consider it, despite this being well over six months ago he has not yet reported any conclusion of his consideration.

Many exchanges at area committees take years.

FixMyStreet Reports

I have reported the Fraser Road and Milton Road trees via FixMyStreet.

The post Council Ignoring New Trees Which Fail in Cambridge appeared first on Richard Taylor.

A meeting of Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership on the 5th of February 2013 heard that many public bodies, including most notably the police, are considering massively expanding their use of web-based (but restricted access) databases for keeping track of people, addresses and for managing cases.

The current and proposed subjects of these databases include offenders, those reporting anti-social behaviour, children coming into contact with council services, lists of Houses of Multiple Occupancy and addresses where “problem families” (a currently trendy public sector term) live.

Police databases are not easy for others to access. This is generally a good thing. Access to, for example, the Police National Computer, is tightly controlled and people get disciplined, prosecuted and punished for abusing their access. Greater “partnership working” between state agencies and an increasing amount of working with private companies and voluntary organisations has led to databases held by one body, such as the police, not being accessible to others being a problem.

The proposed applications for these web-based systems appear to go well beyond those seen to date in Cambridgeshire; where for example traders in a town centre have been able to access information on people with various types of order banning them from, or putting conditions on their behaviour in, an area.

My Suggestion and View of the Programme

My view is that systems used by internally the police, councils and others ought be developed and updated so that information can be made available to different groups as appropriate. The ability to set different permissions to access different information, perhaps including access over the web by outside bodies, needs to be incorporated into public bodies’ routinely used systems.

The problem we appear to have is that police and local government information technology is archaic and slow to change; so officers are understandably enticed by commercial online offerings which offer a lightweight, speedy route to getting reasonably modern technology to support their work. We need to ensure though that the core systems used by the police, schools, councils and others are able to perform as required, otherwise we will see duplication of work, and increase in complexity of administration, rather than technology being used to best effect.

My Concerns

I am concerned about oversight of these new databases. Will they be as secure as the Police National Computer? Will access be controlled and logged so rigorously? At some point in the future might those running these databases for individual police forces, councils, or bodies like CBBID seek to join up records entered by these various bodies and create an overarching database outside of current control and oversight arrangements? Will those whose information is held on these databases be aware of, and have control over, how it is used and who it is shared with?

(A trial in Fenland, which involved datasharing with a housing association, used a consent form for those reporting crimes and other issues to sign to allow their information to be entered onto the system.)

I am also concerned about the focus on those reporting crime; rather than criminals. Knowing that the police will start creating records about me if I report something will deter me from reporting, or encourage me to do so anonymously. I understand there is a desire to identify those who are suffering as repeat victims of crime or anti-social behaviour as a result of political direction and due to police failings in the case of Fiona Pilkington who reportedly killed herself and her daughter after years of torment. However I think the reaction has gone too far, the police need to identify those who need particular help, but I think the best way to do that is to talk to those reporting crimes and find out exactly what the problem is, its extent, how long it has being going on, and how it is having an impact on people’s lives. I don’t think the police ought be trying to identify people on whom crime is having a serious impact though analysing statistics – there are many reasons why people might find themselves in a position to contact the police on a number of occasions.

As well as being uncomfortable with specifically recording, and sharing details of, those who report crimes; I am also concerned about councils sharing their lists of HMO addresses with the police in a live and automated manner. I don’t think it ought matter if a call to the police comes from a HMO or not; I certainly don’t think residents of HMOs ought be given a second class service. I oppose the implication here that residents of HMOs are considered problematic.

Another underlying problem is the current propensity for the police, councils and other bodies to encourage the reporting of crime to bodies other than the police. This then creates the problem of systems needing to be put in place to make the police aware of reports of crime. I would rather see the police being the sole body to which people are encouraged to report crime (using Crimestoppers if they wish to make it anonymous). I’m personally not keen on local councils, or other bodies like CBBID, or CamBAC, playing at policing.

Web-based Database for Offender Management

Detective Inspector Mick Birchall of Cambridgeshire Police described to the committee how a web-based database would help with “offender management”, he presented a report which stated:

The system allows partners to access the case file for offenders from any web based computer and allows real time multi agency case management and recording and tasking of actions.

DI Birchall told the committee that some partners would get direct access to full case files but it was also possible to “task” others, such as volunteers, by sending them emails from within the system without them having access to it.

As these functions appear to be right at the core of the activity of “offender management”; any outsourcing needs surely to be very carefully managed.

Cambridge City Council officer Linda Kilkelly told the partnership that as the council already releases information it holds, for example, on those who have reported anti-social behaviour to the police on request by email. Kilkelly stated there is no difference in giving the police direct access to the council’s databases and declared this would be “covered by existing data access agreements”.

My view is there is a huge gulf between providing direct access to a database and handing over information on request. Responding to requests for information almost inevitably involves considering the appropriateness of passing information on. Local senior police officers regularly told the Police Authority how they thought it important to consider the proportionality of releasing information, particularly relating to children’s encounters with the police, to other parts of the public sector (or in even response to requests for CRB checks).

E-CINS

The Community Safety Partnership considered a paper from the police, presented by Inspector Richard Lowings, who was described as Cambridgeshire Police’s Youth and Antisocial Behaviour Manager. The paper proposed considering using the Empowering-Communities Inclusion and Neighbourhood management System (E-CINS) database produced by “Empowering Communities”. Empowering Communities is a Community Interest Company.

Elsewhere the ECINS system has been used to share information between state run prisons and Staffordshire’s Integrated Offender Management team.

While it wasn’t clear if the E-CINS system was specifically being referred to officers talked about systems to which providers are constantly adding “modules” having seen their systems being used in relation to, for example, sharing a council’s information on their tenants with the police they then add elements to make it suited for other purposes such as sharing information on children considered at risk.

The police are so keen to get more organisations in Cambridgeshire using the E-CINS system they have offered to pay the ~£5000 per CSP area per year charge for the next financial year to get it in-use.

Officer Kilkelly stated that Cambridge City Council would not want to maintain duplicate databases; so would move all their record keeping on to a new online system if it was adopted.

City Council leader Tim Bick made no comment.

Officers from a wide range of agencies representatives at the partnership told the meeting they were regularly approached by private companies offering online databases intended for sharing information between public bodies. A number of members urged caution on selecting the right database provider, for example ensuring there was one which would develop their product in response to users’ needs and provide support.

Officer Kilkelly said she had seen a mock-up of the E-CINS system (though had not seen it in use) and reported it “looked good and user friendly”. Kilkelly told the partnership that she had seen a system in use which shared photographs and profiles of offenders (but didn’t reveal where that was).

The Cambridge Community Safety Partnership agreed to support a motion to the County Wide Community Safety Strategic Board which includes the following statement:

The Countywide Community Safety Board recognises the operational benefits of a web based data share IT system for community safety practitioners which will adapt to changing business environments and provide services which are future proofed

Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner’s Comment

Cambridgeshire’s Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, Commissioner Graham Bright’s friend Brian Ashton, was present at the meeting. He asked the sensible question of if data entered into one system could easily be downloaded from it and used in an alternative system; he was assured by Inspector Richard Lowings that the arrangements to enable such data portability were in place with the E-CINS system.

Rupert Moss-Eccardt’s Comment

Liberal Democrat Rupert Moss-Eccardt who stood for election as Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner and has worked professionally in police technology responded to my live tweets from the meeting:

@rtayloruk I don’t know why they don’t use GovConnect which was supposed to safely allow this sort of data sharing 1/2

— Rupert Moss-Eccardt (@rm113) February 5, 2013

@rtayloruk I can only infer they can’t build it strong enough to be allowed to connect it to the GovConnect backbone but are cutting corners

— Rupert Moss-Eccardt (@rm113) February 5, 2013

Previous Related Comments

I have previously expressed concern about the database held by CamBAC on those who are excluded from Cambridge, responsibility for which is soon to be taken over by the Cambridge Tax organisation “CBBID”.

I have also followed the attempts by local bodies, including the police, to adopt the now abolished “contact point” database for sharing information on children.

Background Document

• Community Safety Partnership Papers – 5 February 2013 (P83 and also from p86)

The post Police and Councils To Share Information on People Via Website appeared first on Richard Taylor.

The Conservative party is split on the question of council tax rises. Conservatives in central government are saying they want to see council tax kept at its current level, but locally in Cambridgeshire we’ve got a Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner and a Conservative run County Council who are proposing council tax rises.

I have previously commented on Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright’s announcement that he plans to raise the policing element of council tax and it was as a result of that article I was invited to talk to the ITV national news reporter who visited Cambridge on the 28th of January 2013 to film a report on the council tax rises we are facing here.

I suggested to ITV news that they might want to speak to Cambridge Conservative Agent Timothy Haire who has publicly opposed the Conservative led County Council’s proposed council tax hike. I thought that pitching his views against those of the County Council leader, Cllr Nick Clarke, would illustrate the split at a local level.

Cllr Clarke has expressed a view that people vote for party brands; the problem when you’ve got a party’s ministers saying one thing, and councillors from the same party in power locally actually doing another is that voting on the basis of a party brand no longer makes any sense, as it’s not clear to voters what they are getting.

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright has argued that he is imposing no-extra burden on council tax by with a 1.9% rise on the grounds it is below the rate of inflation. I think that inflation isn’t the key figure here, it’s not what’s important when working out what extra burden a tax rise will have on people, what matters is the people’s incomes and those in many cases are not going up as fast as inflation at the moment.

The Office for National Statistics’ latest figures report:

• Average Weekly Earnings annual growth rate of 1.5% (September-November 2012)
• Annual Inflation Rate as of December 2012 according to the Consumer Prices Index:2.7%
• Annual Inflation Rate as of December 2012 according to the Retail Prices Index: 3.1%

This was one point I made which made it onto the national news, where I featured for about eight seconds.

People on fixed incomes such as pensioners will be particularly hard hit by council tax rises.

Income Tax, where the more you earn the more you pay, is in my view a fairer tax than council tax; and while I think a local element of taxation is acceptable and helps provide a link between taxation and representation I would not like to see a greater shift towards funding local services from council tax rather than general taxation, the largest fraction of which is Income Tax.

One of the other key points which was put to me was that Cllr Clarke was defending his council tax rise by saying Cambridgeshire is growing, and more homes are being built in the County. I responded to this by noting that this means the council tax take rises automatically as more households pay the tax; it doesn’t follow that council tax rates ought rise.

There were many other points which didn’t make the TV which I’m able to expand on here:

• I agree with Cllr Nick Clarke; a referendum would be scandalous waste of taxpayer’s hard earned cash. Councillors are elected on the basis of their manifestos and it’s at election time that people get to decide what they want. Personally I would like to see councillors come up for election more often; I’d like my three city councillors, and my county councillor, to all be up for election at the same time each year. This would mean councillors breaking their promises, or simply not performing could be removed quicker. This would not cost more, as elections are being held each year anyway – it’s just I can only vote out one of my four councillors in any one election.
• Uncertainty about future levels of central government funding for the police and local government services appears to be driving our local elected representatives to increase council tax. Giving grants for a year, or two, at time from central government is the problem. I don’t personally agree with the view that council tax needs to be increased now, just in-case a cut in central government funding means it might otherwise need to jump in future years. I’d say take the central government money now. Imagine a domestic analogy – if central government offered to pay £200 towards your gas bill this year, would you take it, or would you refuse on the grounds that they might not give you the £200 next year so it might feel like your gas bill had gone up a lot.
• Central government needs to put much better incentives in place to encourage local government to cut costs. Its current short term council tax freeze grants and requirement for expensive referenda are bonkers, and ineffective.
• We need to elect councillors who will reform, and redesign, local government, making it work smarter, making better use of technology – perhaps locally looking to the Chief Constable’s approach to making policing more efficient for inspiration.
• Local government also needs to be given the incentives to take actions which will make savings for the wider state. For example a lot of Cambridgeshire County Council spending goes on supporting older people and providing care. If the council does its role well it can keep people out of hospital saving money for another arm of the state – the NHS (as well as improving people’s quality of life). The problem is that the council doesn’t, in almost all cases, have the financial incentive to invest money into making savings for the state as a whole. Putting these kinds of incentives in place is the kind of way central government ought be reforming the way local government is funded, rather than attempting manipulation by the crude council tax freeze grants and referendum requirements.
• Council tax freezes are very confusing. People hear ministers announcing them, but the don’t happen because local councillors don’t take action. People hear one of their councils announcing one, perhaps even the one which prints the bill and takes the money, but the bill goes up anyway because another council, fire authority, or police and crime commissioner have decided to increase their element.

Effort and Resources

The effort and resources which are thrown into a few seconds worth of TV or radio are often astonishing. For the short piece from Cambridge there was a producer working from London arranging things, a team of three in Cambridge: presenter, camera operator and producer, as well as I was told an outside broadcast team meeting up with them at some point to send the material recorded back to base.

Cambridgeshire County Council press officers were also involved in arranging the interview with Cllr Nick Clarke and ensuring the council’s strict rules, policies and practices, controlling such filming were enforced.

Filming my interview involved the crew spending £8 on drinks (in return for which they got to film in the pub, which then got shown on the national TV news); and the tea cups were carefully arranged on the table, and the crew even lit the candles specially! The professionalism was impressive and my few second includes three different types of shot – me speaking, the interviewer, and the wider shot of us talking at the table; that’s in addition to the shot showing where we were sitting in relation to the Shire Hall. (The reason we were in the pub was it was raining too hard to do the interview outside).

Caption: “Local Businessman”

The caption of “local businessman” has caused some comment, with County Council Leader Nick Clarke writing in his blog:

I was surprised to see Richard Taylor, described as a local businessman, on the feature.

Cambridge City Councillor Colin Rosenstiel tweeted

“Described as a local businessman” @RTaylorUK #chuckle

Resident Andy Bower jumped in with:

But he is, isn’t he?

I think this raises an important point about how the media portray those with views on how society is run. Sometimes describing people sensibly in a caption is easy; for example often people are speaking in a particular role, or as a spokesperson for an organisation. Often though due to the pressure of time, and the need to simplify a story in order to get it across and you end up with someone say speaking captioned a “cyclist” and someone else as a “motorist” to take a common example. People generally can’t be summed up in a word or two. Many cyclists also drive.

I actually proposed: “Council Tax Payer”, or “Cambridge Resident” as those appeared my most direct interest in the subject matter. I also offered them my web-address of rtaylor.co.uk.

The County Council’s ex press officer Andy Alsopp suggested

I think ‘keen cyclist’ is a much better description. For a start, it’s true

All the labels are true; as are “transparency activist, democracy evangelist, civil liberties campaigner” and many more.

Perhaps councillors Rosenstiel and Clarke would like all members of the public commenting on their actions to be captioned “local nutter”, and perhaps forced to inhale helium to subtract credibility from what they are saying?

As for who I am; well I’m Richard Taylor, and perhaps the best way of saying which Richard Taylor is to say the one of rtaylor.co.uk – there’s loads of background there from which anyone use to make up their own mind on how, if at all, I ought be described.

(The spelling of Rosenstiel has been corrected at various points in this article)

The post Commenting on Proposed Council Tax Rises appeared first on Richard Taylor.

While the doors of our adult courts in the UK are unlocked and anyone can just walk in and observe what’s going on they don’t effectively operate in an open and transparent manner.

Our courts fail to pro-actively and openly publish information about what they are doing. I would like to see the court lists (details of upcoming hearings, trials etc. with the names of the defendants and details of charges) pro-actively published and kept up to date, along with the court registers (records of decisions, sentences etc.). I think we should all be easily able to track, monitor and scrutinise what goes on in our courts.

Article Summary

• I demonstrate that a Freedom of Information request can result in the release of a magistrates court list in a reasonably timely manner (my response took 6 days). I have included the text of this request and explained how I made it to assist others.
• I explain why I am not making my FOI response available in full online : it contains material that it is illegal to publish.
• I am publishing example court lists in full for selected upcoming sittings to be held at Cambridge Magistrates Courts, as well as further selected individual listed items in full too. I believe this is the first time this has been done.

My FOI Request for Court Lists

On the 9th of January 2013 I made the following freedom of information request to the Courts and the Tribunals Service:

Dear Courts and the Tribunals Service,

Could you please release the information which would be expected to appear on the full copy of the court list in relation to appearances, hearings, trials etc. currently scheduled to be held in Cambridge Magistrate’s Court in [specified five court sitting days redacted - explanation below]

Regards,

–

Richard Taylor
Cambridge

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Surprisingly, and commendably, my request was reasonably promptly answered, in full, on the 15th of January.

While I made the request in public via the freedom of information service WhatDoTheyKnow.com (directed to the Courts and the Tribunals Service). It has been hidden from public view there as the identity of victims of crimes people were being charged with, including a girl under 14 who was named in relation to an indecent assault charge, were released.

If the Courts and the Tribunals Service had a responsibility to remove such information prior to releasing the information is an interesting question. This is information anyone can obtain either by making the same freedom of information request I did, or by turning up to the court and asking for a copy of the court list on the day of the hearing, or indeed by sitting in the court and hearing the charges being read out.

If any other public body had released such highly sensitive information then the Information Commissioner would investigate, and it is possible that fines could be levied on the organisation and perhaps individual staff too.

Reporting of information which could identify the victim of a sexual offence is contrary to The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 as amended by Schedule 6, paragraph 31 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, risking in the worst case a £5,000 fine. The law has an incredibly broad scope, an offence is committed by publishing any material which could lead to the identification of a victim. Since such cases are routinely heard in Cambridge’s courts, a copy of any week’s court lists will probably contain some – is pointing that fact out an offence? What about pointing out the court list for a specific period does? (I’ve redacted the date period from my request to avoid this possibility). What about saying if you sit in court for a morning you might well hear such information – is that an offence? Am I committing an offence of publishing material which could lead to the identification of a victim by including the link to my, now hidden, FOI request – perhaps some search engine or archive scraper took a copy and that will make the information obtainable in the future?

Another way of phrasing these questions is: “Am I allowed to explain why am not publishing, in full, the information I have obtained as a result of my Freedom of Information request?”

There are parallels with defamation law, in that there are certainly innocuous sounding FOI requests I cannot mention or quote because doing so would point people to illegally defamatory material.

A problem we have in this country generally is that many laws are so broadly written that almost everyone is committing some kind of offence at any time and should the state decide to arbitrarily take action against almost any individual they can; I think this is a highly undesirable state of affairs.

Personally I am uncomfortable with identifying publicly any victims of crime identified in the court lists I have received and therefore have not done so.

Generally Publishing Information in Court Lists

The vast majority of information in a magistrates court list can be published freely, thanks to the exemptions in paragraph Section 8(4) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 which makes clear that in relation to pre-trial hearings the following, among other things, can be published:

• (b)the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses and the ages of the accused and witnesses;
• (c)the offence or offences, or a summary of them, with which the accused is or are charged;

That covers the key information which is shown on the court list.

I would like to see the courts service redact information it is illegal to publish from court lists and make them available online.

Examples of Released Information

List for 15/02/2013 Cambridge Magistrate’s Court – Court 2 (PDF)

This is a traffic court list.

It includes someone facing charges of speeding on the road I live on, Milton Road, in Cambridge. The list states: “The speed recorded by means of a laser speed detection device was 36 miles per hour.”, this relates to an event on in July 2012 and is only reaching court in February 2013 – this appears a rather long time for a straightforward case. There are other cases of action being taken for speeding in 30 limits in Cambridge below 40 mph, there’s a listing relating to “High Street, Trumpington at a speed exceeding the legal limit of 30 miles per hour. The speed recorded by means of an automatic radar camera was 38 miles per hour”.

There are also examples of people facing court action on charges of travelling at 80 MPH on the A14, both relating to average speed cameras near Bar Hill and as a result of the police operating “manned equipment”. I was surprised to see action taken for travelling at 80 MPH on a dual carriageway.

List for 13/02/2013 Cambridge Magistrate’s Court – Court 1 (PDF)

This is a mixed list containing :

• Theft from a shop
• Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention
• Many drugs offences

List for 11/02/2013 Cambridge Magistrate’s Court – Court 2 (PDF)

This is a list for two trials relating to motoring matters in Cambridge:

1. Fail to provide specimen for analysis – vehicle driver
2. M/v fail comply with red / green arrow / lane closure flashing light signals – detected by means other than ACD (Hills Road / Station Road Junction)

Public Order Offences

15/02/2013 Cambridge Magistrate’s Court – Court 3

• Block: 12:00 – 13:00 Adult Trial
  Mr Thomas George Culverhouse CULVERHOUSE-CLARK 77A Birdwood Road, Cambridge, CB1 3ST Solicitor: Thomson, Webb & Corfield
  Informant: POL2 URN: 35SP0550112
  DOB: 03/03/1975 Age: 37

  1 PU86107 Use threatening words / behaviour to cause harassment alarm or distress On 27/11/2012 at Cambridge in the County of Cambridgeshire used threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby Contrary to section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986. Contrary to section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986. MAX. PENALTY: S: L3 Plea: NG Plea Date: 12/12/2012 Adjourned from 12/12/2012, for the trial

  This case may be of interest as there are currently proposals to change the law on using “insulting” words; it would be interesting to see how the law is currently having an impact in Cambridge.

Foxton Railway Crossing Cases

Events at Foxton Level Crossing are often reported in the press, and cause concern as this is a hazardous location where the fast train between London and Cambridge crosses a main road.

15/02/2013 Cambridge Magistrate’s Court – Court 1

• Block: 10:15 – 10:30 Adult Summonses

  Mrs Iva Sandra-Ann BRADLEY 20 Clevedon Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU2 9ED
  Informant: BTP URN: 93LT1411112
  DOB: 27/04/1959 Age: 53

  1 RT88575 Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention On 26/10/2012 at Foxton in the county of Cambridgeshire drove a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely a red Ford Ka X238 ELC, on a road, namely Foxton railway level crossing on the A10 without due care and attention. Contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. On 26/10/2012 the defendant drove a red Ford Ka X238 ELC on Foxton railway level crossing on the A10 without due care and attention in that . MAX. PENALTY: S: L5 LE 3-9pp

• Dr Beris Mary COX
  DOB: 02/08/1948 Age: 64
  151 Browns Lane, Staonton-on-the-Wolds, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5BN

  1 RT88575 Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention On 16/10/2012 at Foxton in the county of Cambridgeshire drove a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely a grey Volkswagen Touran FP09 FNR, on a road, namely Foxton railway level crossing on the A10 without due care and attention. Contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. On 16/10/2012 the defendant drove a grey Volkswagen Touran FP09 FNR on Foxton railway level crossing on the A10 without due care and attention in that . MAX. PENALTY: S: L5 LE 3-9pp

Other listed items include:

• Many cases of “fail to notify change of circumstances affecting your entitlement to social security benefit / other payment” involving local councils.
• Cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal (a dog) – Animal Welfare Act 2006
• Threaten a witness/juror
• Appeal of a noise abatement notice
• Assault by beating
• Review progress of drug rehabilitation requirement
• Assault a constable in the execution of his / her duty ( in Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright’s home village of Fordham)
• On the 12th of February 2013 in Courtroom 2 at 11am there is a trial scheduled re: charges of sheet metal theft from Thorlabs Ltd in Ely.

Why I Want Greater Transparency From Our Courts

I want to live in a safer society, with lower levels of crime and fewer crime related injuries and deaths. When it comes to tackling criminality we need to be able to see where problems lie. We should be able to seek to address questions such as: “Is the work of the police being undermined by excessively lenient courts?”. I would like to be able to see if actions by councillors such as introducing new speed limits or setting up dispersal zones are effective and how the courts treat people charged with offences relating to breaching them, this would inform my lobbying and campaigning on such matters and perhaps even affect which way I vote. I would like to be able to find out when people are in court for offences committed in my local area, or in relation to subjects I am interested in. I would also like to be able to make my own judgements on if sentencing is fair, proportionate and effective with a view to making suggestions for improving the way we run our society, reducing re-offending and reducing crime.

We need to have openness and transparency in our courts so we as individuals can find out how society as a whole expects us to act, and what the penalties are for breaching our laws. The published sentencing guidelines, judgements and those laws available on legislation.gov.uk provide a guide but more can be gleaned from observing our courts system work in practice.

My Previous Related FOI Requests

In April 2010 I made a Freedom of Information request for details of Upcoming Cases at Cambridge Magistrates Court which was largely refused. I’ve also asked information on how the Cambridge Magistrate’s Court register is held and for the procedure for obtaining a copy and that request was rejected.

Courtel – Crown and County Courts

In relation to Crown and County Court lists the Ministry of Justice has a contact with a company called Courtel, it appears this contract lets the company, but not the ministry of justice or the courts themselves, publish detailed court lists. A number of Freedom of Information requests have been made to seek more details:

• A request for information relating to the contract between the Ministry of Justice and Courtel – Rejected / not treated as a valid FOI request
• Public interest provisions for exclusive arrangements with Bailii and Courtel

To view the kind of very limited information currently made public pro-actively online in relation to Crown Courts: See the Cambridge Crown Court list on the Justice.gov.uk website.

See Also

• Wigan & Leigh Magistrates Court – (Wiganworld.co.uk statement saying “Wigan Magistrates Court will not allow local court results to appear on this website.”)

The Removal from WhatDoTheyKnow.com

Ideally it would be possible to remove material from WhatDoTheyKnow without taking down the entire request thread and correspondence. Currently individual messages and attachments cannot be hidden by the administration team (of which I am a volunteer member).

WhatDoTheyKnow is open source, and anyone able to make the improvements is more than welcome to do so and submit them. There is a relevant issue on GitHub. I have personally had other material I would like to campaign on the back of hidden, including a response releasing sets of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Probation Trust’s Board Papers. I’ve also commented on an accidentally released document which has been removed from WhatDoTheyKnow.

My Previous Related Articles

• Cambridge Court Usher Defies Lord Chief Justice on Transparancy – September 2012 – Includes continued lobbying via the Community Safety Partnership.
• Cambridge Community Safety Partnership December 2011 – I used the public speaking slot to urge greater transparency in the courts.
• Cambridge Magistrates – 17 November 2011 – Article following observation of the court where I note I was told there wasn’t a full copy of the court list available.
• Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner – Courts – October 2012 – My views on what our Police and Crime Commissioner ought do in relation to the courts.
• Cambridge Magistrates’ Court – My report on observing Cambridge Magistrate’s Court in April 2008.
• New Cambridge Magistrates’ CourtI visited Cambridge’s new Magistrates’ Court buildings on Thursday the 23rd of October 2008.
• A Day in the Cambridge Magistrates Court – 7th of March 2011
• Watching Cambridge Magistrates Deal With A Car Vs Cycle Incident – 25 July 2011
• Jail for 222 Victoria Road Resident Who Burgled Milton Road Pharmacy – 25 July 2011
• A Morning in Cambridge Magistrates Court – 25 July 2011
• Charges Dropped After Student Fees Protestors Strike Deal With Prosecutors – 17 November 2011

The post Cambridge Magistrates Court Lists Obtained via Freedom of Information Request appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright (Conservative) has just announced his plans to increase the policing element of council tax by 1.9% as of April this year.

Mr Bright stood on a ten point manifesto, number six of which stated:

Not to put any additional burden on council tax

My view is that he has broken this promise. I think that those who stand for election and then break their manifesto pledges in this way damage the reputation of our democratic system.

I have published my views on the commissioner’s pre-election promise on council tax.

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright has published only the figure for his proposed council tax increase; unlike other commissioners around the country he has not published his full budget and policing plan, not even in draft form, for comments.

Proposing a council tax increase probably suggests the commissioner is not envisaging signing up for wholesale outsourcing to G4S; however he hasn’t released sufficient information to enable informed commentary, we also don’t yet know to what extent the tax rise is required as a result of spending on his own office, his staff and deputy.

Our Police and Crime Commissioner could have accepted a government grant which would have paid the equivalent of a 1% increase in the police element of the council tax; this would have been paid for out of general taxation, yet he has decided he needs to take yet more money directly from council tax payers. As a property tax council tax hits those who might not have the income to pay it, it isn’t in my view as fair as income tax, yet the commissioner has decided to take yet more police funding from it.

Not accepting central government grants to freeze council tax was the position taken by the previous police authority; perhaps the fact their staff are still present, and advising the current Police and Crime Commissioner explains the continuation of the same policy.

This is a rebellious move from Conservative Graham Bright who is going against his party’s policy, as annunciated by Minister Eric Pickles, of seeking council tax freezes.

I hope the commissioner has made his party colleagues in government aware of the reasons he has not accepted their offer of a grant to enable a council tax freeze. A key problem appears to be uncertainty as the grants are for one year only (but have been made repeatedly). The commissioner may feel that he doesn’t have the profile or ability to communicate the problem to the people of Cambridgeshire, as the rational thing is surely to take the “bonus” from central Government now, but accept that as a result, if the “bonus” is not forthcoming in the future, a council tax rise might be needed then, but with Cambridgeshire residents keeping their money in their pockets in the mean-time.

It appears that the commissioner may have succumbed to pressure from the Chief Constable who made clear he will be pushing for an increase in the council tax precept, saying without it he will be forced to cancel recruitment and officer numbers will drop.

A 1% rise in the police element of council tax raises about £500,000 for the police *; so the commissioner’s proposals will raise about £1m.

In the current year Cambridgeshire Police has a budget of £127,625,000 funded by £48,973,000 from council tax and £77,825,000 from general taxation via central government *.

The post Proposal to Increase Council Tax Announced by Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridge’s councillors introduced a 20 mph limit on Maid’s Causeway in August 2010; but signed it poorly so it had no impact on speeds and the police have been unwilling to enforce it as they take the view that, given the state of the signage, that would be unfair.

At the West/Central Area Committee on the 10th of January 2013 local resident Mr Lawton raised the matter with Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright. Mr Lawton described himself as the co-chairman of the Brunswick and North Kite residents’ association.
Mr Lawton said the police were clearly capable of enforcing the limit, but were unwilling to do so. Mr Lawton said this was to residents’ “great dissatisfaction” and called speeding a “daily menace”.

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright replied:

I think I am probably ahead of you a bit on this because I have already taken this up; I’ve had a discussion with the Chief Constable informally as to what can be done. So he’s been warned that I this to be looked at and there needs to be a priority on it.

I welcome the fact that the city are actually going to extend the area of thirty [sic] mile an hour limits. That is good.

Because it isn’t a place where you can in my opinion drive safely at any faster than twenty miles an hour. You’ve got so many pedestrians, you were talking about tourists, there are so many people here and many of them don’t look the right way up the road because they are used to coming from the continent. All of these things need to be taken into account.

Taking the speed limits as they are and enforcing them has got to be a priority. There is no question about that. There is no use having them if no one is going to take any notice of them. And I say I applaud the fact you’ve got the twenty miles an hour limits. You’re not the only people. It’s now happening in some of the villages as well and all of this needs to be tackled.

I think there is, and I can’t answer this fully, but there is a slight problem in the way that it is dealt with which negotiations are going on at national level with the Home Office on this in the way in which it is policed and the actions that they take.

Let me assure you that I’ve picked it up and I intend to see it through. Because I applaud the fact that you’ve got twenty mile an hour limits in the city, and I say you’re not the only place which has got them, we’ve got them in other places as well. They are there for a reason; it’s all about safety, what we don’t want to do is to end up with people being killed or maimed because people are not observing them.

I am quite a stickler for it. My car has a speed limiter on it so that when I come in to Cambridge I make jolly sure I don’t get caught. I put it onto thirty and then when I hit the twenty I put it onto twenty and I can’t drive any faster. Perhaps all cars should have those.

I would have taken a different approach to Commissioner Bright.

I do not think police enforcement is desirable or practical as a primary way of getting traffic to follow speed limits; it has its place, but the road environment and signage, needs to be such that the vast majority of those using the road are aware of, and comply with, the speed limit.

I think on Maid’s Causeway the signage is inadequate; councillors and the police agree with this too, so it is surprising to see the commissioner calling for enforcement before this is addressed.

In my view the Commissioner ought have urged councillors to make substantive improvements to the road environment and signage.

I agree with the commissioner that reducing injuries and deaths ought be a key aim of getting people to drive slower in the city; there are other benefits too in terms of encouraging cycling though making people feel safer which can impact on people’s health and happiness as well as reducing traffic congestion.

I would like to see more patrols by Police Constables who are empowered to deal with things like dangerous and careless driving, which the PCSOs who primarily patrol the city are not. I think the focus ought be on those causing a hazard and not those who have simply breached a speed limit.

Unfair penalties concern me, both for those who’ve not seen the signage, and also for those who are driving at a speed which is not massively excessive for the road, and not dangerous, but due to the very low limit may face sever penalties from the courts. Penalties can lead to driving bans which can have huge impacts on people’s lives so reasonable, well signed, speed limits are vitally important.

I disagree with the commissioner that driving at over twenty miles per hour is dangerous across the entire city of Cambridge; he appears to be proposing an even more draconian blanket 20 mph limit than most Liberal Democrats, who are happy for main routes to retain 30 mph or higher limits.

The M11 motorway and the A14 dual carriageway come within the city in places and I disagree with the commissioner’s assertion that it is unsafe to drive above twenty miles per hour on these roads, in fact doing twenty miles an hour or less there would usually be very dangerous. It may be that the commissioner has not appreciated where the boundaries of Cambridge City lie; this is something he does need to get to grips with before supporting calls for a blanket 20 mph speed limit.

Current Consultation

Cambridge City Council is running a consultation, which closes on the 10th of February 2013, asking for views on new 20 mph signage on Maids Causeway / Newmarket Road, including painting 20 mph signs on the road way and colouring short stretches of road (with either a red or sandy colour).

At the West/Central Area Committee I suggested the consultation be made a public consultation, rather than as was the case prior to the meeting, a consultation with local residents only. Ward councillor Sarah Whitebread supported my suggestion and the chair ruled that the consultation would therefore become a public one. I think this is positive because immediate neighbours of the road have special interests; such as fears speeding heavy vehicles damage their properties’ shallow foundations.

• Link to the consultation page on the city council website

I think councillors need to know the views of the police, and magistrates, on the new proposed signs. I would like to see the council pro-actively seek the views of these groups during their current consultation. If the signage is insufficient for the police and courts to be willing to enforce the law in the area then it is no good.

If the area is to be made 20 mph then I think there needs to be more substantial changes to the road environment. I would like to see a coloured surface installed over the entire length of the limit; not on top of the existing road surface, but a new surface installed. I would also suggest gates, or at least gate posts, marking the entrance to the area and seeking to give the road adjacent to Midsummer Common the feeling of a park road as seen in other cities, including Bath and London.

I think there also needs to be a wider view taken, to deter traffic from using Maids Causeway / Victoria Avenue as a through route, as part of the inner ring road. Changes to the junctions at Mitcham’s Corner and the roundabout at Elizabeth Way (redesigns of both areas are currently under consideration) need to be considered.

The very popular cycle and pedestrian routes across the road should be given attention with a view to improving their safety. The main one is the crossing from Fair Street to Midsummer Common, but there is also crossing to the entrance of the common by the four lamps roundabout and other popular crossing points up the street.

The road is very wide in places; extending pavements, or using coloured surfaces and lines to make the road actually, or at least feel, narrower, might help reduce speeds.

See Also

• Policing West-Central Cambridge April 2012
• West Central Area Committee October 2010
• Police Not to Enforce New City Centre 20 MPH Limit – August 2010
• Inept Police Target Traffic Jams During Botched Attempt to Tackle Speeding – August 2009
• “It has been reported that the police have now purchased the equipment required to enforce the 20mph zones.”
• Cambridge Councillors Ask Police to Tackle Speeding – September 2009
• Cambridge Cycling Campaign Hustings – Blanket 20 MPH Limit for Residential Streets – April 2010

The post Police and Crime Commissioner Bright on 20 MPH Enforcement in Cambridge appeared first on Richard Taylor.

I spoke at Cambridge’s West / Central Area Committee on the 10th of January 2013 following a speech by Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright. While I didn’t manage to record myself while I was speaking I do have video of the Commissioner’s face while I was speaking which I have published along with this article.

What I Said:

• I noted that the commissioner had focused on neighbourhood watch and parish councils in his speech and let him know that in Cambridge we don’t have parish councils or many active neighbourhood watch groups.
• I urged the commissioner to observe democratic police priority setting by local councillors on the West/Central Area Committee. The commissioner didn’t reply to this suggestion verbally, however he can be judged on his actions: he walked out of the meeting as the policing agenda item got underway.
• I asked the commissioner if he supported councillors on the area committee setting local police priorities and holding the police to account for their performance against them. I asked if he would be letting councillors set local police priorities and if he would be endorsing any priorities set later in the meeting. The commissioner gave no answer to this key question, which I had asked previously him during the election campaign when his response was: “wait until after the election”.
• I suggested that local police priorities set by elected councillors provide “democracy in depth” and “localism” and noted that councillors were representatives of all residents in an area in contract to members of neighbourhood watch who are self-selecting.

What Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright Said After I had Spoken:

The commissioner responded without directly answering the key question of if he supported local, democratically set, police priorities ; and the chair provided no option for follow-up questions (something the commissioner may well have negotiated in advance?).

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright said:

Yes I shall be setting priorities, I will continue to do that, but I will do it in consultation with as many people as I can

That could be interpreted as saying the commissioner is going to do all local priority setting himself; he’s certainly started by ordering a crackdown on “dangerous cycling” in Cambridge saying:

….dangerous cycling in the city was brought to my attention during my election campaign. As a result I asked the Chief Constable to tackle it.

• The commissioner didn’t directly respond to my suggestion that supporting local democratic priority setting might be a rational response to the low level of support for him from the city’s electorate. He replied instead commenting on the low turnout promising in three and a half year’s time he will have made sure people “know what it’s all about”. I hadn’t pointed particularly to the low turnout, but the fact he got only 2.4% of the electorate in Cambridge voting for him – that’s not low turnout, that’s a low vote for him in the city.
• Commissioner Bright said: “I appreciate Cambridge is different” and said “I have to point out Peterborough is very different too”; that was typical of the true but vacuous statements he made throughout his appearance at the committee. I suspect this comes from years of practice evading public questions.
• The commissioner said: “I don’t think you can have an umbrella operation around the county”. I agree with this; in some places we have strong, democratic parish councils which ought be given a role in police priority setting, in Cambridge we have students’ unions, which the law requires be run democratically, who represent a significant fraction of the population who could be given a role. I have published my own proposals and think that while there could, and should, be local variation the principle of elected councillors being at the core of the process of holding the police to account on at a local level is one I would like to see in operation everywhere.

It is often very difficult for members of the public seeking to contribute to area committees to understand what is permitted. I note I was interrupted by the chair after two minutes and asked to ask a question; despite the fact the council’s public speaking rules permit either questions or statements and suggest that members of the public ought be allowed three minutes to speak, and be afforded a two minute follow up. I understand chairs have the freedom to vary these parameters to meet demand, avoid repetition and keep things interesting, but there have been far too many occasions where members of the public have been reprimanded for not asking questions during public speaking slots.

The post Suggesting Police and Crime Commissioner Bright Lets Councillors Set Local Priorities appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright made his first public speech in Cambridge at the West / Central Area Committee on the 10th of January 2013. I am here presenting the full video and transcript along with my comments.

During the speech the commissioner announced new targets for:

• All non-emergency calls made via 101 being answered within thirty seconds.
• The police attending at the scene of burglaries within the day, if not a few hours.

I thought those were two very positive elements of the speech; but overall I felt it was rather vague and lacked solid content and details.

The commissioner also said he was “looking at” the policing element of council tax; despite standing on what I understood to be a clear platform promising not to raise it.

There was a lot of focus on Neighbourhood Watch and Parish Councils as was perhaps to be expected given the commissioner’s manifesto, and pre-election, promises to empower these groups; however this meant the speech was not tailored to Cambridge City where we don’t have parishes or many active Neighbourhood Watch groups.

The Commissioner did not address the role of councillors on the West/Central area committee in influencing local policing through holding the police to account for their performance against the committee’s democratically set priorities.

Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright’s Speech

First of all good evening and thank you for inviting me.

I used the Open Forum section of the West Central Area Committee on the 1st of November 2012 to suggest councillors invite the Police and Crime Commissioner to their police priority setting meeting primarily so that they could find out if they could continue setting local police priorities and holding the police to account locally. Councillors agreed with my suggestion and that’s why he was invited.

This is the first of the area committees I have been to in Cambridge.

I think it is also the first local police priority setting meeting of any type which he has attended in the police force area since being elected Police and Crime Commissioner. As far as I am aware he did not attend any in the run up to his election either.

I will continue, in rota, to visit to make sure that I’m aware of what you are thinking about.

I think this is excellent. I want to see a Commissioner who attends as many of these local meetings as possible. I would also hope that observing democratic priority setting and holding of the police to account in Cambridge would encourage him to introduce such processes elsewhere rather than empowering self-selecting members of neighbourhood watch, or whoever turns up to a priority setting meeting.

I would have rather the Commissioner have not only said he was listening, but also have expressed support for the committee, both endorsing its priorities and offering to help it fulfil its role, for example by providing better information to inform its decisions. I have suggested area committees be offered crime maps, injury data, and information on the costs of crime in their areas. Where there is a conflict between the will of councillors and the police, as there has been over 20 MPH speed limit enforcement, I think the Commissioner ought take a role in mediation and deciding how to resolve the matter.

But I was pleased to read your reports.

I have no idea what the Police and Crime Commissioner is referring to here. The reports to the meeting are produced by the police, with some input on occasion from others like the council and fire service. They do not reflect the views of councillors or the public. If he meant the minutes of the meetings, I wonder why he didn’t say that.

One of the suggestions I have is that it would be useful if they were sent in to my office so that we can have a look at them and monitor them because they have had very valuable information in them as far as I was concerned.

The papers and minutes for the West/Central Area Committee are pro-actively published online. They are openly available to everyone, including the Police and Crime Commissioner and his staff.

I certainly think the Police and Crime Commissioner ought be kept aware of local policing meetings; to find out if the police, or councils, are telling him about them, is one reason I’ve made a Freedom of Information request for material including his diary.

What I want to try and do is set up a monitoring system not just in Cambridge but right across the county so that we know what people are concerned about, so we know what’s happening.

I think this is a good idea. I would like to see a Commissioner ensure that it is easy for residents of Cambridgeshire to find out what their local police priorities are, to see the evidence those have been based on, to see the police reports on their progress against their priorities and also see what suggestions for priorities have been rejected. Currently outside Cambridge a lot of information is not easily accessible, papers are distributed to councillors and selected individuals by email for example, or even just made available on paper at meetings, rather than being openly published online.

My view is this is something the Commissioner ought ensure the police are doing rather than take it on himself within his office.

Additionally I would like to see routes for raising suggestions for priorities and police related matters, in public, for priority setting meeting’s consideration, without having to attend a meeting in person.

This of course is an entirely new role. We’ve never had one before. So I’ve had to construct the operation and piece together the various ways in which I can actually do my job. I am replacing something like seventeen people on a committee, we now have a committee of one and with more responsibilities. It has been quite a learning curve for me and I have literally been in listening mode as well as talking to as many people as possible. I have found it very useful.

The members of the Police Authority were not doing a full time role; they attended occasional authority and committee meetings. The Commissioner is getting paid a full time salary; the two are not comparable in the way the Commissioner has compared them.

I don’t think being literally in listening mode is something which makes much sense.

I’m very keen particularly wearing the crime commissioner’s hat to try to assist in prevention of crime. I’m interested that Cllr Bick is here, we’ve had a talk about this already, and I want to see if we can do more with the City Council to actually help prevent crime. This is so important. It’s a bigger problem obviously with a larger area but it is quite possible. Looking at what Peterborough has been doing there’s some way ahead I think on that particular front. So working with partners across the county, people across the criminal justice system. I’ve had meetings with the criminal justice board, we understand where we are both coming from on that front.

The wider role of the commissioner, beyond the police, is very important. I want to see a Police and Crime Commissioner leading the courts, probation service, local councils, and other parts of the public sector, co-ordinating efforts to run our society in a fair, just and safe manner. The Commissioner didn’t say anything concrete, but at least his aspirations appear to be vaguely edging in the right direction.

Need to provide effective support for victims and witnesses and of course the victim support will end up next year being funded entirely from my office and we will be responsible for them. I’m quite keen to try and get victim support further into the communities and one of the things I am looking at at the moment is getting to join forces with Neighbourhood Watch. I want Neighbourhood Watch to be more proactive a) in preventing crime and advising people where they constantly see people going out with their windows open or parking their car on the drive with the keys in it – little things like that just to remind people. But I would want to see them not only doing what they’re doing now but being prepared, if you have crime in an area, and I’m particularly concerned about elderly people, it’s much nicer for neighbour to be the first one to go and hold their hand rather than waiting for someone to come from Peterborough or wherever. That I think is important. That will require quite an effort and victim support have agreed to come in on that and to try and train people. I think that would be a useful thing for them to do and would give them more interest in running that system.

I’m wary about excessive focus on victims of crime. High burglary levels where I lived in Arbury impacted me both before and after I was burgled. I think the police are currently distracted by silly requirements to keep those who’ve been victims of crime up to date with what they have done even if they’ve just done some formulaic, clearly futile, investigations and made no progress. I don’t want to see police resources targeted in this way; I’d like to see the focus being reducing crime.

Neighbourhood watch attracts some odd people; I wouldn’t be keen on encouraging them to nag people to close windows for example. I’ve seen the alarm caused in a Cambridge street by a PCSO putting police marked postcards though doors telling people they’ve left their properties insecure, leading to people arriving home wondering if they’ve been burgled. PCSOs doing this is bad enough, without encouraging Neighbourhood Watch to start doing it.

I can’t imagine that the situation of a Neighbourhood Watch group member knowing a victim of burglary and visiting to provide support would occur very often. I would have thought a police officer investigating simply asking if there was anyone the victim could ask to come around and help out or be with them would be more practical.

While I suspect that in some villages there may be strong communities; in parts of Cambridge we don’t have this, we a substantial fraction of the population is transitory. I would like to see elected representatives who would take an interest in strengthening local communities, with a view to improving quality of life, happiness, health as well as potentially having a side benefit of reducing crime and I think a Police and Crime Commissioner could play a role; but I don’t think the starting point, the key foundation, ought be putting greater police resources into neighbourhood watch.

Obviously it’s a duty to consult widely. Not only with the public but also those who are definitely victims of crime. I’m spending some time looking at the way in which we do that effectively. I will be appointing what I call an outreach worker for the southern part of the county in due course. At the moment we are setting it up in the north with a combination of Peterborough and Fenlands.

I’ve not seen any evidence of consulting widely since the the Commissioner took office. Elsewhere around the country commissioners are consulting on their Police and Crime Plans, and their budgets, but not here in Cambridgeshire.

Again, I don’t think victims of crime’s views ought be given extra weight.

I would like to see the Commissioner himself attending public meetings such as Cambridge’s area committees and key council meetings and not appointing someone to attend on his behalf.

I wonder if the “outreach worker” jobs will be advertised; I also wonder if they need to be paid roles or if he could seek volunteers.

So that we’re in touch with everyone. I find that the lower you can get down the line, to parish councils, the more you find out what’s really bugging people. We need to find that out. And to make it two way, explaining what we are doing as well as listening to what they have to say.

Cambridge does not have parish councils.

So, the, other thing is I do have a pot of money which goes to community safety partnerships and various voluntary organisations and I’m concerned that we try to have sustainability on that front. I will be in the coming year looking at all the money which we give out and measuring whether we’re getting value for money ie. seeing what the delivery is.

It’s certainly good to hear the commissioner wants to make sure he is getting value for money.

I’ve been spending most of my time in the last couple of weeks on the budget. I can’t obviously tell you what’s there. It’s well under-way and obviously we will be presenting that to the Police and Crime Committee.

By Police and Crime Committee presumably he means the meeting of the Police and Crime Panel on the 7th of February 2013.

I can’t see why the process could not be made public; elsewhere in the country Police and Crime Commissioners have published draft plans and budget and have run consultations.

I could see a commissioner elected with a strong mandate having published a detailed manifesto might just get on with translating that into a Police and Crime Plan and associated budget, but even so I would like to see a more open process. Commissioner Bright appears to revel in saying he’s keeping secrets.

I think I can safely say we will not be looking at cutting police numbers. That’s the one thing I promised we wouldn’t and for the foreseeable future I can see that we can maintain that. We may even be able to increase police numbers.

This is good. Police officers are the core of the police force. It would be interesting though to see what the maintenance of numbers is at the expense of though. We need more details, and to look behind the headline figure, on things like the number of hours police constables are spending policing, and looking to see if that is being maintained.

The way in which police are organised. The Chief Constable, I must say I am extremely impressed with him, he is a very dedicated man, and very professional and so are his staff but I feel that by re-organising we can get more police out on the front line rather than being sort of inside. There’s a lot of areas where this has happened elsewhere not only in this country but abroad, that we’re looking at to ensure that we get police officers out front. That’s what the public are asking for they want to see policemen out and about. But not just out and about, actually doing things as well.

I think this is very positive; however there’s a need to ensure we take action which actually reduces crime, which makes people safer, which reduces injuries, and doesn’t just appease neighbourhood watch members who live in safe villages who’d like to see a police officer walk down their street on occasion.

I think technology is key here; we need to ensure police officers have access to all their IT systems wherever they are so they are not having to travel back to police stations to carry out administration. Admin needs to be minimised, and as far as possible paperless.

So looking at the future, I’ve said the immediate priority is looking at the budget and getting that right and looking at the precept which I know you’re all interested in.

The commissioner stood for election promising no rise in the precept (the police element of council tax) so if he is looking at it perhaps he is considering a u-turn on this key manifesto commitment. Point six of his ten point manifesto was:

Not to put any additional burden on council tax

Perhaps he’s looking at it with a view to a cut?

Fighting antisocial behaviour. I have to say that when I first got into this, and I was a latecomer as a candidate I was very surprised at the real feeling that the public have about anti-social behaviour, not just in the urban areas which is where you expect to find it but down to the smallest village. It’s the issue which I have not got the answer to yet. We’re working on it, or looking at it, and it is something which has got to be tackled systematically but we need the help of the public on that, it is not just a policing issue. It is the community which has to play its part in that and we need to find ways in which that can be organised.

I don’t think the term “anti-social behaviour” is useful. Mr Bright has himself used the term in relation to drug dealing, and he wouldn’t explain to me why he’d done that or what it means to have such a crime classified as “anti-social” rather than simply a crime.

I’ve seen many public meetings where people say “anti-social behaviour” because they know it’s become a buzz word which the police are keen to act in relation to. I’ve even been at a meeting where someone’s asked if a violent assault can be classed as anti-social so that he could raise his concerns about it and the way the police had responded.

Quite often people do complain to the police about non-criminal activities which don’t put anyone at risk; common examples include young people gathering on green spaces or outside shops. My view is the police ought not be taking action in relation to such calls; but where people have concerns, and need reassurance, the police should seek to provide that.

I am very concerned that Commissioner Bright’s anti-social behaviour focus, combined with our anti-social behaviour laws, could lead to the criminalisation of young people for, for example playing football or merely gathering. I completely disagree with this as a priority and would like to see a focus on actual crimes, particularly those which cause harm and injuries.

(More..)

On the question of burglary it’s something which I am concerned about because if any of you have been burgled you know what a trauma it is. If it happens to an elderly person it is even worse, they just want to leave, they don’t feel safe in their home. It’s a horrible intrusive crime. What I’ve said to the police is that all too often people tell me that they don’t see a policeman until several days later when they get a crime number.

I agree; I have been campaigning for a long time locally in North Cambridge for the prioritisation of burglary and violent crime over things like cycling on the pavement which our councillors often ask the police to focus on. I have also campaigned to retain burglary and violent crime at the Cambridge City wide level.

That is not on as far as I’m concerned. I’ve said quite clearly we want the police to visit burglaries where the crime is committed on the same day and if possible within a few hours, so they can look at it. We’ve got burglars who are almost professional, we need to know what they’re up to. You can recognise the person and the techniques that they use.

I agree with this. When I reported a burglary at my home the police response was to send detectives to investigate me. I think the police need to focus on catching criminals rather than trying to deter people from reporting crime – which is what I think they must be trying to do via their focus on those reporting crime.

A speedy response is essential as following a burglary people want to secure their homes again and tidy up – if a police response is slow people are left having to decide if to preserve evidence or if to begin repairs and cleaning up.

The best way to tackle burglars is putting them away for a while or doing something to put them on the right course

I strongly disagree with the inference that burglars should in some cases not go to jail.
Where there burglary is being committed to fund a drug addiction then drug treatment does need to be part of the sentence but it ought be as well as, or preferably party of, and not instead of, a prison sentence. We must not see those committing crimes who are on drugs, or seeking to pay for drugs getting lesser sentences than others.

I have: written more about this in other articles.

We need better response times for non-emergency calls. I remember when I first raised this issue on the second day I was in office I was told it was much better. Not that I’m a disbeliever but I did actually phone in and find that was not the case. We’ve really got to work towards, and it’s not going to happen overnight, to having every call answered within thirty seconds. I think we should be doing that.

Certainly 999 calls I’m quite happy about; I think everyone is. It’s the non emergency calls where you need someone to speak to about it.

This is something I have been drawing attention to since September 2011, and continued to pursue throughout the following year.

This is something a commissioner could I think have solved on his first day; making clear the police have to answer their phones, and moving staff to address the current problems even if there is a longer term plan for improved technology and systems.

I think that increasing the target to 100% of calls answered in 30 seconds is ambitious. I’d rather see a focus on getting the current performance target being met first. Moving to 100% answering will presumably require some kind of load sharing of 101 calls with other forces to cope with extreme peaks in demand; I think this is a positive aspiration but not the priority.

Since the abolition of the Police Authority we have had no published statistics on phone answering performance from either the Police and Crime Commissioner or the Police. I have made FOI requests to both the force, and the commissioner, which will hopefully release it but they have not been promptly responded to. The latest information from September 2012 was that an initial answer was taking up to 13 minutes and a further wait of 43 minutes to actually speak to someone about the matter you’ve called in about could be experienced in the worst case.

I want to grow the number of specials and encourage people to volunteer. I have volunteered to get on side with the recruiting and to meet them and work with them and encourage the specials. I think they have got a big, big, part to play. That goes right across the county both urban and rural areas.

I think this is a reasonable policy.

I think our criminal justice system, and state, as a whole needs to be supportive of police officers be they paid or volunteers. We also need to ensure special constables are really able to make a difference, letting them perform to their capabilities and not creating unnecessary barriers to their participation in all aspects of a police constable’s work; specials shouldn’t just be used for the dull jobs. As a fully empowered constable a special is in my view of much greater value than a PCSO.

I’ve talked about Neighbourhood Watch and what we need to do on that front, but I really want to champion local initiatives between the police and the councils and parishes and volunteers – to try and get it all joined up so everyone is working in the same direction. I had a meeting just today about early intervention and prevention of persistent offenders and troubled families. That is in my opinion an incredibly good investment. If we look at some of the figures how particularly younger people have kept them out of trouble. It’s what we ought to be looking at. Preventing rather than waiting for it to happen.

That’s a bit rambling and lacking in detail but clearly prevention of crime is critical.

I think ultimately my aim is to build trust in the police. There is a lot of distrust, for lots of reasons and not just local ones, it’s the national thing that sort of hits everyone.

I strongly agree with this. I think a key problem is the police lying, especially in the context of misleading people about their powers when they stop them or otherwise come into contact with them. (More…)

We need strong, open and transparent, systems for oversight and dealing with complaints to give people confidence in the police – this is something I would like to see Police and Crime Commissioners establish. (More…)

Another key element which I think creates distrust is the police not treating everyone equally. We need to ensure young people are not disproportionately targeted and are not harassed by the police simply because of their age. We need to ensure that for example travellers, and mothers taking children to school, are subject to the same treatment by the police as wider society and we don’t have sectors of society treated as “sensitive” and who the police are unwilling to tackle.

The police are there by consent; that was the original purpose of it.

I think the principle of policing by consent has taken a significant hit in Cambridge since Graham Bright became Police and Crime Commissioner as we have seen neighbourhood officers being armed with TASER weapons in the city. I fear we are moving away from policing by consent to policing by force and that ultimately I think will leave us with a city, county and country which is harder, and more expensive in terms of both money and manpower to police.

As you know to have effective policing you need to the community to be on-side; for them to work together. The public are incredible in terms of eyes and ears and we want to make that work. So I’m saying to the police that we have to understand that the police are there to serve the public. I actually said it’s the motto of John Lewis that people working in the shop are there to serve the customer; we have to do the same thing with the police. They’ve accepted that; I’ve not had anyone dispute it, we’ve really just got to remember that’s what it’s all about.

I agree with that; as the commissioner himself said, no one is disputing it.

It’s a big job. I was elected for three and a half years and I want to ensure that when those three and a half years are up we will have changed things, we will have made things better, we’ll have made Cambridgeshire itsself a safer place. Quite a challenge. I said to the police last week – if they were a rotten force and we had escalating crime rates it would have been an easier job to tackle. We’ve actually got declining crime rates, we’ve got a very good police force and we’ve got high standards and we’ve got to maintain them.

Claiming his job would be easier if the force was rotten and crime rates were rising is a very odd thing to say in my view.

I agree a key aim ought be to make Camridgeshire a safer place. I would like to see crime, and road incident related, injuries and deaths come down and think that ought be a key, solid, measure used to assess success (rather than more qualitative measures such as how safe people say they feel).

I would like a commissioner who clearly distinguished between the actual rate of crime, and the rate of reported crime. I would be very happy to see the rate of reported crime rise as people gained more faith in the police, believed reporting crime was worthwhile, and didn’t think the police would harass them, not the criminals, if they made a report. Even fixing the non-emergency number to make it easier for people to report crimes might well result in a jump in the reported crime statistics too.

The post Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright Speaks in Cambridge appeared first on Richard Taylor.

On the 10th of January 2013 Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner took public questions for the first time since his election in November 2012 during an appearance at Cambridge’s West/Central Area Committee.

The Cambridge Cycling Campaign submitted a question:

The Committee of Cambridge Cycling Campaign wishes to raise the issue of enforcement of dangerous driving and on cyclists breaking the law. Sadly none of us are able to be here tonight as we have our own Committee meeting tonight.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign supports efforts to tackle illegal cycling. Our website has a clear policy statement on this and most recently we have supported the police’s L.I.T. enforcement campaign which has seen an increase in enforcement against those without lights.

However, there is a large amount of dangerous driving in the city. Sir Graham will be aware that the STATS19 data collected by the police shows that collisions and deaths caused by cyclists are extremely rare – instead caused by dangerous driving. Stand outside the police station and you will see not only cyclists without lights but drivers on their phones and shooting through lights turning red and so on.

We are therefore puzzled at why cyclists seem to have been singled out as the first priority of the PCC. Evidence-based policing would surely mean most resources being used to tackle activity causing the most danger to the public.

Would you agree that both illegal cycling and dangerous driving should be tackled, and that the balance between these should reflect the relative level of danger shown in the STATS19 collision data?

Commissioner Graham Bright replied:

Yeah well I reacted to the Cambridge Cycle Campaign anyway because they were flagging this up about err cyclists.

Ermm there’s more to come.

Err in terms of looking at dangerous driving.

I would agree that probably the most dangerous thing are motorists using mobile phones and even texting whilst they are driving. I mean that is just a horrendous accident waiting to happen; and we’ve had accidents in different parts of the country on that.

I am so surprised that so few people have been called in for doing it because you’ve only got to stand alongside the road and see it yourself. I see it when I’m driving. So that has got to be dealt with.

All motorists have got to be disciplined.

Motorists parking on the pavement is something which causes a lot of problems. Pedestrians have to go into the road. Cyclists have to come off their cycle lane and out into the road. So it seams harmless, “oh I’ll just park there”, for two minutes but in that two minutes you can cause mayhem.

And so you know the whole question of people recognising what the rules and regulations are, recognising what the law is about, and actually behaving themselves. In some incidences there are even pedestrians that cause accidents as well by running across the lights just before .. they’ve changed and they’re still running across. Everyone has got a part to play in making our roads safe. I mean I am pleased the question of cyclists without lights seems to have had a big impact because I saw one tonight walking here from the car park but it was at one time very common, so I think we’ve raised the profile of that. One without lights, not one with lights, one without. It was one with lights at one time. I take their point, we’re not just looking at cyclists, it just so happens that was the first thing out of the hatch.

We’ve got to make sure that motorists as well, because I’m quite concerned that Cambridge is an attraction for tourists. It was interesting earlier on, some of the comments about tourists and visitors, that’s not going to diminish, it’s going to increase certainly with the Duke and Duchess, it’s raised the profile big time of Cambridge and Cambridge is beautiful city, and its nice to see people enjoying it but we want them to enjoy that safely and it’s up to visitors and those who live here to just obey the laws. Simple as that.

My View

The Commissioner hasn’t really addressed the question. He has not explained why he has decided to order a crackdown on dangerous cyclists in Cambridge rather than at least also setting a priority to tackle dangerous driving of motor vehicles.

Much of the Commissioner’s “answer” addressed points which were tangential to the question.

I would like to see policing efforts focused on behaviours which risk causing injuries and deaths.

Cambridge needs more, and better targeted, roads policing. One key problem I think we have is that we have PCSOs patrolling the city without powers to deal with things like driving while using a mobile phone, or dangerous and careless driving. I agree with Commissioner Bright that anyone walking in the City can see drivers on their mobile phones. I would like to see more PCs rather than PCSOs patrolling so that such offences can be tackled; I would also like to see specialist traffic police operating in the city to tackle the full spectrum of motoring offences.

I would have liked to see a commissioner come to councillors at the area committee and make clear to them that enforcement can only one, relatively small, part of what’s needed to make the city’s roads safer. I would have liked to see him urge councillors to ensure signage is clear and well maintained and to continue investment in infrastructure intended to improve safety such as new cycle routes and improving junctions to make them safer for cyclists.

Better information on accidents, and injuries, could if provided to councillors at area committees help them make informed decisions on police priorities and on spending money on improvements to city’s roads.

Councillors, and the public, ought have access to information from the courts on the outcome of cases where there have been incidents involving cyclists in the city. I would like accident investigation reports prepared by the police to be made public, and where relevant reported to councillors, their intended purpose and audience needs to change and the focus ought move away from solely being to support a prosecution but to also inform our decisions on changes to the city’s roads and how our traffic laws are enforced.

In the rare cases where deaths of cyclists occur on Cambridge’s streets the inquest process ought be truly public and its findings ought feed into decision making aimed at preventing recurrence of similar incidents.

I also would have liked to see the commissioner recognise that as Cambridge grows a key way to avoid traffic gridlock is to ensure cycling is a safe and attractive option.

Lastly my view is the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have no relevance to the question asked.

The post Cambridge Cycling Campaign Question Commissioner Bright on Cyclist Crackdown appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Giving Neighbourhood Watch greater power, influence, and police resources, is one of Cambridgeshire’s new Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright’s top policies.

Following his election in November 2012 Commissioner Graham Bright made his first appearance at a local police priority setting meeting on the 10th of January 2013 when he attended Cambridge’s West/Central Area Committee.

At the Cambridge meeting, the first at which he has taken questions from the public, Mr Bright appeared to make a case against his own proposal to empower Neighbourhood Watch saying:

I have experience of my village Neighbourhood Watch.

You know, you sort of have a cup of tea, and a natter and that’s about as much as you do.

Actually to do something that’s proactive that’s what we really want people to do. You know. More so in the villages than in the towns, you’ve got lots to do in the town and lots of things happening.

Mr Bright appeared to be saying Neighborhood watch was a social activity to keep people amused, and that city/town residents didn’t need to create such diversions for themselves.

Mr Bright’s policy no. 8 (of the 10 in his “manifesto”) stated:

Upgrade Neighbourhood Watch by providing better resources and giving greater responsibility similar to London’s Neighbourhood Boards but based on parishes

My view is that a Police and Crime Commissioner ought give greater responsibility to elected local councillors who represent everyone in an area rather than the self selecting individuals who make up Neighbourhood Watch groups.

I think that the resources which go into supporting Neighbourhood Watch ought be used on initiatives which are open and accessible to all, and which benefit everyone. For example I think continuing the Ecops email system which anyone could sign up to made much more sense than funding special email updates, often duplicating the Ecops content, sent exclusively to those who are members of Neighbourhood Watch organisations.

ECops

I as a resident of North Cambridge, have not had an Ecops message since the 30th of November 2012 and that appears to have been the last message sent to any ECops subscribers in Cambridge. Perhaps one of the Commissioner’s first acts has been to kill off ECops?

Graham Bright’s village Neighbourhood Watch

Graham Bright took steps to stand for election while keeping his home address secret, however it has been reported that he lives in Fordham.

A “Graham Frank James Bright”, born in the same year as Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, is listed as a director of DIETARY FOODS LIMITED with an address of: Cumberland Place, Mill Lane, Fordham, Ely, Cambridgeshire, CB7 5NQ.

I can find only one mention of Fordham, Cambridgeshire’s, Neighbourhood Watch group in a report on Snailwell Parish Council from 2003 in the Cambridge News which reported:

The Fordham Neighbourhood Watch area group will meet bimonthly from December.

I can find nothing else about the Neighbourhood Watch group in Fordham, if it really exists, at all.

I much prefer responsibilities for setting police priorities and holding the police to account lying with elected representatives who are democratically accountable, hold public meetings, and are required by law to operate in an open, transparent and accountable manner than handing this over to Neighbourhood Watch groups which are able to operate in almost total secrecy.

See Also

• Police and Crime Commissioner Bright Walks Out of West Central Area Committee Meeting During Policing Item – January 2013
• Policing East Cambridge – August 2012 – A representative of a Neighbourhood Watch organisation lobbied for the installation of flower beds.
• Graham Bright – My September 2012 Article on Graham Bright

The post A Cup of Tea and Natter – All Neighbourhood Watch Do Says Commissioner Graham Bright appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright made an appearance at the Cambridge’s West Central Area Committee on the 10th of January 2013. Mr Bright made a speech and took some questions, but didn’t stay to observe councillors set the new local police priorities for the area or see them hold the police to account for their performance on the previous priorities.

I was astonished when Mr Bright stood up and walked out. Commissioner Bright started to get ready to leave as councillors were discussing the enforcement of the city’s 20mph limits. Bright waved, grinned and left while a member of the public from Newnham was expressing concern about a recent rise in burglary levels shown in the latest police statistics. I thought this was not only very rude, but showed a contempt for, and lack of interest in, the views of Cambridge residents, and Cambridge’s elected representatives, on police and crime matters. Those items discussed after Mr Bright left included violent crime in the city centre, cycle crime, and even his favourite topic “anti-social behaviour”.

Bright’s Invitation

At the West Central Area Committee on the first of November 2012 I suggested to councillors on the committee that it would be a good idea for them to invite Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner to their next police priority setting meeting. I explained I thought it would be a good idea for the committee to hear from the commissioner, particularly on the question of if he supported the system of local councillors democratically setting local police priorities, and holding the police to account for their performance against them, to continue. Councillors agreed, an invitation was issued, and the Commissioner turned up to the meeting on the 11th of January 2013.

The Commissioner had not previously attended any of the local police priority setting meetings in the county since his election; this was also I believe the first time he has taken questions, in public, from the public, since his election.

. @rtayloruk calls for Cambridge-style democratic police priority setting to be rolled out across the county #wcac

— Chris Havergal (@ChrisHavergalCN) January 10, 2013

When I was given the opportunity to question the commissioner I specifically urged Mr Bright to stay and observe councillors setting the police priorities and to consider rolling out democratically set local priorities across the county. He ignored, and rejected, this. He also failed to address my key question of if he supported councillors setting the local priorities that evening. He did say he might set his own priorities, but left councillors unsure of if them setting priorities would have any effect or if he would unilaterally usurp their decisions without even having had the courtesy to listen to the views of the Cambridge councillors and members of the public.

Cambridge News reporter Chris Havergal summarised his interpretation of what Mr Bright had said about how priority setting will work with him as commissioner as:

Bright says he will set priorities but will listen to what people say #wcac

— Chris Havergal (@ChrisHavergalCN) January 10, 2013

The implication appears to be that devolution to our local councillors has, or will, stop. I will continue to strongly oppose this.

Neighbourhood Watch and Parish Councils

Commissioner Bright made clear that he wanted to focus on, and empower, Neighbourhood Watch and Parish Councils. He made this the key element of his speech so when I was allowed to comment I noted that Cambridge has few active Neighbourhood Watch groups and no parish councils. Only one neighbourhood watch group has been active enough to attend a police priority setting meeting in the city to my knowledge, the Whitehill Close Neighbourhood Watch and even they managed to exist for a year before finding out where their local priorities were set. At a recent North Area Committee meeting I asked the police and fire service how many Neighbourhood Watch organisations existed in that area, and the response was: “none”.

The Chair of Cambridge’s Federation of Residents Associations, Morcom Lunt, spoke to say a recent survey by the police revealed around seventy people in Cambridge who consider themselves active neighbourhood watch co-ordinators. I wonder if many of these are like some of Mr Lunt’s Residents Associations and individuals don’t necessarily have an organisation to co-ordinate. Cllr Reid claimed there was active neighbourhood watch in her ward.

Despite saying he wanted to empower Neighbourhood Watch the Commissioner admitted all his own local Neighbourhood Watch does is: “drink tea and natter”, he also said many were primarily social groups.

The post Police and Crime Commissioner Bright Walks Out of West Central Area Committee Meeting During Policing Item appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel Logo

John Elworthy, the editor of a number of local newspapers, recently tweeted to note the cancellation of a meeting of Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Panel which had been scheduled for Wednesday the 9th of January 2013. Notice of the cancellation had been posted on the committee’s webpage on the Peterborough City Council website.

No reason for the cancellation was given along with the notification. Member of the panel Cllr Martin Curtis responded to John Elworthy’s tweet to say:

Cancelled due to lack of business

Rupert Moss-Eccardt questioned what this might mean:

So, apart from appointing a deputy and hounding cyclists, the PCC has done nothing of note?

It is astonishing that the panel considers it has no business to conduct; I think this shows it is not carrying out its role of robustly and routinely scrutinising the commissioner and holding him to account. My concern is that it is only going to carry out those duties it is required to by law.

Agenda Plan

The police and crime panel discussed its agenda plan in a meeting held behind closed doors on the 21st of November 2012. No minutes for that private meeting have been produced despite key decisions, including the appointment of non-councillor members of the panel, having been made at the meeting.

There does not appear to be any plan to release the minutes, or even any decision notices, as the meeting was one of those dubbed a meeting of the “shadow panel” and the minutes were not put to the first meeting of the panel itsself for approval and publication.

The PDF report on the agenda plan for the Police and Crime Panel shows a proposal to consider the following items at the 9th January 2013 meeting:

• Confirm Procedure for Handling of Complaints
• Confirm Rules of Procedure
• Confirm Protocol Between Commissioner, Constabulary and the Panel
• Scrutiny of the Police and Crime Plan

Perhaps the commissioner has fallen behind the proposed timetable for the production of the Police and Crime Plan? If that was the case surely the panel ought to have called him in to discuss this rather than cancelling the meeting?

Commissioner’s Absence

The panel might also have discussed the commissioner’s absence from a series of key events during his first few weeks in office. Events I would have expected the commissioner to have been present at which he was absent from included:

• The swearing in of new constables.
• A briefing event in London including sessions with the Home Secretary and Security Services.
• The first “Force Executive Board” meeting – in December 2012.
• Full meetings of both Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council – where councillors from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have questioned the commissioner’s absence from their full council meetings. Previously there had been an opportunity for councillors to raise policing questions at their full council meetings.
• Cambridge Community Safety Partnership – at his confirmation hearing the Police and Crime Panel and specifically asked Deputy Commissioner Ashton to get to know about the work of these bodies, but neither the commissioner or his deputy attended
• Various Local Police Priority setting meetings, including one in Swavesey

The post Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel Cancel Planned Meeting appeared first on Richard Taylor.

TASER armed officer in the UK

Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership on the 14th of December 2012 received a presentation on TASER use in Cambridge by Chief Inspector Neil Sloan of Cambridgeshire Police. To-date in Cambridge only specialist firearms officers have carried and used TASER weapons, no officers have routinely patrolled with the weapons, or carried them as a matter of course when responding to incidents. From January 2013 sixteen neighbourhood officers in Cambridge will carry the weapons routinely. Three TASER armed non specialist firearms officers are expected to be on duty in the city at any one time.

Chief Inspector Sloan told the partnership meeting that the non-firearms officers armed with TASER will both be attending incidents to which the specialist firearms officers would otherwise have been called, and be specifically called to attend, as TASER officers, at a wider range of incidents.

It was only in response to my questioning that Chief Inspector Sloan revealed that those non-firearms officers authorised to carry TASER will do so at all times while on duty. In his presentation to the meeting the Chief Inspector had omitted this key fact, and talked about how there was a robust process in place for the deployment of TASER at an incident to be authorised. My view is this was all largely irrelevant baloney given what’s planned is to have non-firearms officers from the city’s neighbourhood teams routinely carrying the weapons and authorised to use them, on their own initiative, if the circumstances mean they judge that to be a reasonable and proportional course of action.

Claiming to explain how the weapons would be used in the city Chief Inspector Sloan stated: “First a TASER authority is given”. He told the meeting that in the case of a spontaneous incident the force control room inspector on duty (Oscar 1) would make a decision on if TASER deployment would be justified, and if he thought it would be, he would make a “TASER authorisation” noting the rationale behind his justification in the incident log.

In the case of a pre-planned event, for example the execution of a warrant, any authorisation to deploy TASER would be given by an officer in the role of “Firearms Commander”. It is interesting that the work of our local neighbourhood officers is to be monitored by the specialist firearms unit in this way.

In cases where a non-firearms officer carrying TASER decides to use it without prior authorisation then they have to inform the appropriate “Firearms Commander” straight away and the case will be reviewed by the force’s “TASER lead officer”.

If officers authorised to carry TASER are doing so all the time (including while executing warrants, or responding to incidents) then I don’t see what additional safeguard these authorisations provide. I sought clarification on this point; asking if an authorisation might be given for officers to carry TASER to police Cambridge City Centre on Friday night, simply because it’s Cambridge City Centre on a Friday night rather than in relation to a specific incident; the response I got was that this would not be required as the authorised officers would be carrying the weapons as a matter of routine in any case. I noted this was not the impression that had been given by the presentation; and was a key fact omitted from it.

Chief Inspector Sloan started his presentation by arguing “this is not a new thing”, saying Cambridgeshire police officers had been carrying TASERs since 2004. This appeared to leave many members of the partnership confused as to what was changing, because the Chief Inspector did not explain what was new, that the weapons are to be given to non-firearms officers for the first time.

The meeting was told that the non-firearms officers who will carry TASER in Cambridge will do so: “in a holster on a highly visible vest”. He clarified that the TASER will be “visible in a jacket”, which I took to mean that officers’ outer clothing will not obscure the TASER and said the officers would keep their TASERs on them all the time they were on-duty saying they will never be left in vehicles. I had registered to use the public speaking slot at the meeting to ask a number of questions about the newly proposed deployment. Chief Inspector Sloan had been given a copy and addressed many of them during his presentation, including this question of if the TASERs will be overtly carried, and if they would always be kept on the officer or if sometimes they might be left in a vehicle.

An assurance was given that non-firearms officers in plain clothes would not carry TASER in Cambridge although Chief Inspector Sloan told the meeting that elsewhere TASER is carried by such officers.

Chief Inspector Sloan said that Cambridge’s TASER armed non-firearms officers would give a clear warning “as they turn up to an incident” and “when TASER is about to be used”.

No mention was made of pre-emptive TASERing (deciding in advance to TASER people without warning).

An officer who is authorised to use TASER accompanied Chief Inspector Sloan to the meeting. He told those present that the officers to be deployed in Cambridge in the new-year would be trained to “aim for the centre of mass”, he pointed out on his own chest where they would be seeking to hit people with the TASER barbs; with one high up over the heart and one slightly lower and to the side. (This is contrary to the manufacturers’ advice on “preferred target areas”, which suggests avoiding the chest).

The meeting was told that in drive stun mode subjects “just feel the pain” and there is no electric current running through the body; whereas when the weapon is fired and the barbs used the neuromuscular incapacitation effect is what is sought and what is effective, rather than pain.

Assurances were given that “appropriate after care” would be provided to those the police shoot with TASERs. Medical professionals will remove the barbs, and if the subject is in custody (which the Inspector appeared to be assuming would be the case) they would be subject to an “enhanced care plan” and placed under “more observation” [than a typical person in custody].

Examples given for legal authorisation of the degree of force involved in deploying or using a TASER given included using reasonable force to effect an arrest and section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act which says: “the officer may use reasonable force” (in relation to powers in the PACE Act).

I had asked how those non-firearms officers who will be carrying TASER in Cambridge from the new year had been selected. The meeting was told they were volunteers from the “Safer Neighbourhood Teams” whose applications had been reviewed by their “line managers” who had looked to see if they were able to provide evidence that they had experience in applying the police’s national framework on the use of force.

Cllr Bick, the only elected representative present, asked the police about the potential for the impact of using the weapons to be greater than expected. He noted the police may not know if someone was on drugs. The police merely agreed with the premise of the question, there might be times when the impact is greater than expected, and they typically don’t know much about those they TASER in advance. The meeting’s chair asked if the police would know if someone they were about to TASER had a heart condition; the Chief Inspector confirmed they would not – he gave an analogy of not knowing if someone had brittle bones before using a truncheon on them [being a modern Chief Inspector I suspect he probably said "baton"].

Chief Inspector Sloan assured Cllr Bick that the TASER would only be used as a last resort; after trying to speak to someone, and only if they were posing a risk to themselves and others. Stressing their intended degree of restraint the Chief Inspector stated that it was likely someone threatening to stab themselves with a knife would not be TASERed until they had stabbed themselves.

Cllr Bick also asked about public oversight of police use of TASER in the city. Chief Inspector Sloan responded to say people could always make FOI requests for information. The meeting’s chair, a city council officer, argued that proactive publication would be preferable and that people should not have to make FOI requests, Chief Inspector Sloan promised the partnership he would “take that back”.

Cllr Bick asked if there were any examples of incidents (or statistics on the number of incidents) recently in the city where the police would have liked to have had non-firearms officers armed with TASER present. In reply Chief Inspector Sloan told Cllr Bick there had been no cases where the police had found the resources they had available currently were inadequate.

I asked about to what extent the change followed on from the merger of the specialist firearms teams with Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire; resulting in the specialist units being slower and more expensive to deploy to incidents in the city. In response Chief Inspector Sloan said this was a factor, he added that there was also a desire to bring the force’s policies and practices into line with those in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire.

One member of the partnership said the presentation ought not have been made as the matter was an operational one for the police.

I disagreed with this stance, saying I thought if police officers are routinely armed with TASERs or not is a strategic matter. I asked if any consideration had been given to the impact on police-public relations and was told no. Inspector Sloan said he didn’t anticipate any adverse impact.

I asked if Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright had been consulted on the proposed roll-out of TASER to non-firearms officers in Cambridge. I was told the police had not asked him on the grounds that they were merely putting into practice a decision taken before he came into office. (The police authority never did take a decision, much less have a vote on, rolling out TASER to non-firearms officers).

My View

I am very concerned by the routine deployment of TASERs by the police in Cambridge. If the police need to deploy them in relation to specific incidents I would rather the well trained and experienced specialist firearms officers were used, rather than neighbourhood officers. If the specialist officers are not readily available then I’m concerned about the impact the force’s re-organisation and mergers has had in relation to the force’s ability to react to incidents where a conventional firearms response is required as well as on TASER availability.

The feel of the city may change if it is policed by officers carrying weapons routinely; I also think there will be a negative impact on police – public relations and the city may become harder to police if there is a shift from policing by consent to policing by force.

I think routinely issuing non-firearms officers with TASER will result in the police using greater levels of force than they would have done in the past.

See my other articles on TASER.

Further notes from the Community Safety Partnership Meeting

• I noted the meeting papers were not accessible online. Officers stated they were. They are in fact present in a very unusual format (which I have never seen before) in some kind of multi-document PDF – which when opened in “Preview” the Mac OSX’s default PDF reader shows no indication it contains more than one document. The meeting’s chair complained that I had raised this issue before. I had not, this is the first time I’ve done so, though I had complained about the inaccessibility of a previous format used – word documents with further word documents embedded in them (which on one occasion only had images of icons relating to the embedded documents and not the documents themselves). I noted Cambridge City Council has an online system for presenting meeting papers and that the partnership has not had a response from the council on the question of if it can use that to both present its papers more accessibly as well as publicise it’s meeting by placing them on the council’s calendar.
• I asked why my questions to the September meeting had been dismissed by the partnership. I explained why I thought greater openness from Cambridge’s courts, including publishing the court lists and registers online, would aid the partnership in its work and also enable gaps in information presented to councillors and the public to be filled. The meeting’s chair said my suggestion of passing on my comments and suggestions to the courts (even if the partnership disagree and want to see the courts continue to operate secretively) would be considered.
• The minutes of the previous meeting were not presented to the meeting
• The meeting was not quorate; so decisions will be made in private by email. The decisions relate to making applications for funding to the Police and Crime Commissioner.
• It was reported the Police and Crime Commissioner told the previous days’ Community Safety Strategic Board meeting that he will fund community safety projects at at least 50% of the current level.
• Cllr Bick revealed he met the Commissioner on Monday the 10th of December specifically to lobby for localism in spending on Community Safety Projects; he wants the partnership (an undemocratic body) to be given a pot of money by the commissioner to spend as they wish.
• The partnership appeared to agree to make bids way in excess of what they thought was justifiable or required, for example for taxi-marshals every weekend of the year, not just peak weekends, in the hope of getting funding.
• Cllr Bick if the Cambridge Tax organisation would be funding the taxi-marshalls as they had promised to do in their manifesto, Cllr Bick was told by officer Vicky Hornsby that they’d only pay up as a last resort if funding could not be found elsewhere.
• The magistrates’ representative was absent – he appears to rarely attend the meetings and the partnership is failing to resolve to even let the magistrates know – they don’t make it easy to find out who is absent from each meeting, rejecting my suggestion of listing absentees on the minutes.
• A number of the proposed bids for money show an intent to spend it with Hyline Security (rather than any other company offering similar services). The members of the partnership did not have their attention drawn to the fact that CAMBAC, which is a member of the partnership, and represented there by Vicky Hornsby is chaired by Tony Harold* who is also the general manager of Hyline Security *. To specify the specific company to be used in a proposed budget for 2013-14 in this way appears to me to be very unusual.
• It was noted that those running pubs and clubs in the city had been unhappy with the “safe refuge” not being “as advertised” by the partnership and focusing more on street drinkers than revellers.
• Cllr Bick apologised for asking lots of questions. He had nothing to apologise for, he was the only elected representative present, as the only person representing the residents of a city of 100,000 I think he was entitled to ask a lot of questions
• A member of the partnership said they didn’t think Police and Crime Commissioner Bright would want to fund their “Community De-tox programme” – a “project worker” helping people alcoholics, a project also funded by the city council, on the grounds that they got the impression he was interested in focusing on anti-social behaviour in rural areas with parish councils. Cllr Bick said this showed the importance of getting the commissioner to allow local decision making in Cambridge.
• Addenbrookes’ Security Manager was present, but did not contribute. As he is responsible for staff with police powers it was good to see him at a public meeting in the presence of an elected representative

The post Neighbourhood Police Officers in Cambridge to Routinely Carry TASER from January 2013 appeared first on Richard Taylor.

On the 6th of December 2012, on the morning of the day of the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel meeting which will be asked to consider Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright’s proposed appointment of Brian Ashton as his deputy, I went on the Paul Stainton Breakfast Show on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire to talk about the proposed appointment and the amount Mr Bright is planning to spend on his office.

Paul Stainton and I questioned how Mr Bright is able to give an assurance he will be saving money compared to the Police Authority given his proposed additional spending on his deputy and other staff. The question of why the Commissioner is apparently seeing the ~£200,000 saved each year by not having to pay Police Authority members any expenses and allowances as cash for him to spend on his office, rather than a saving which ought be banked before we even get to talking about any additional costs the Commissioner might cut, was raised.

I sought to stress that the Commissioner has one pot of money, and what he spends on his office, and appointing his friends and Conservative party colleagues to well paid positions, is not available for front-line policing.

I have also written to the two Cambridge councillors who are members of the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel:

Cllrs Bick and Wilkins,

In advance of your consideration of Commissioner Bright’s proposed appointment of his friend Brian as his deputy on £28,000 for 2-3 days work I would like to draw your attention to the following:

• The commissioner’s proposal does not make clear if Brian Ashton would be paid his £28,000 “on-payroll” and have income tax and national insurance deducted at source. I suggest the panel recommend this occurs to preclude the possibility of any tax avoidance.
• The arrangements for any expenses for Mr Ashton have not been made clear, nor have arrangements for any potential other payments or benefits, for example office costs or computer equipment.
• Brian Ashton, was interviewed by Chris Mann on the BBC Radio Cambridgeshire Drivetime show last week; in that interview he said he might do less than 2 days a week towards the end of the period.
• Graham Bright didn’t mention he was going to appoint a deputy during the election, certainly didn’t say he had his friend Brian in mind, or that he was thinking of paying him 28K for 2-3 days a week.
• On BBC Cambridgeshire, on Drivetime, about a week ago Commissioner Graham Bright was asked what he and his deputy will be doing, he replied :
  

  ” I can’t at the moment because we’re still getting to grips with exactly what we will be doing.”

  In light of this I would suggest the panel recommend he waits and sees if he needs a deputy, and what he needs them to do, before making an appointment.

• Derbyshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner is openly advertising for a deputy – http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Elected-police-commissioner-hire-pound-56-000/story-17477174-detail/story.html and perhaps seeking to make an appointment on merit, this is something you could recommend happens in Cambridgeshire, in the interests of maintaining public confidence in the Commissioner and his staff.
• The suggestion salaries for Deputy Police and Crime Commissioners are by the Government has appeared in the local press. This is not the case, the panel may wish to clarify this and ensure the position is clear to the public.
• There is no current clarity on the question of if the Commissioner may appoint further deputies in the future.

I have placed the radio interviews I have referred to on YouTube and linked to them from:

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/shona-johnstone-deputy-police-crime-commissioner.html#comment-75304

I also note there has been no sign, in public at least, that the commissioner requested a confirmation hearing for Dorothy Gregson who appears to have become effectively his Chief of Staff. I would also suggest the panel ought carefully consider the role Gregson plays in the confirmation hearings given she is a key member of the Commissioner’s staff.

Regards,

See Also

• Cllr Shona Johnstone as Cambridgeshire’s Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner?
• Million Pound a Year Personal Office for Cambs Police and Crime Commissioner

The post Commissioner Graham Bright – Office Costs and Deputy Appointment appeared first on Richard Taylor.

I do not want to see additional state regulation of the press, or of wider journalism. Freedom to report and comment on what is being done by those in power is an essential pillar of our democratic society.

Everyone ought be treated equally under the law. Alleged offences committed by those working in the press, and those supplying them with information, ought be investigated and where there is evidence it ought be put in front of a court.

Almost all of the shocking behaviours by the press which led to the Leveson inquiry were down to people doing things which were already illegal and which the police ought to have acted on.

There are though aspects of our law, which are generally applicable and not specific to press regulation, that I think MPs ought consider improving following the publication of the Leveson report:

Privacy and Breach of Confidence

If, as Charlotte Church claimed on BBC Question Time on the 29th of November 2012, the publication of stories based, without permission, on the diary of Kate McCann (whose daughter went missing) is not currently illegal then our laws on breaches of confidence may need improving, and I would support doing that.

I’m not sure there is a problem with the law in this area as it is though. While the circumstances are not identical, the publication in the press of stories based on Prince Charles’ diaries was a similar case and there Judge William Blackburne made a ruling, upheld on appeal, that, having considered the balance of the public interest and the right of Prince Charles to privacy, the material should not have been published.

Unlawfully Obtaining Personal Information

Questioning the Prime Minister following his statement on the Leveson report, Cambridge’s MP Julian Huppert asked the Prime Minister about implementing the recommendation to give greater sentencing powers to the courts in relation to the offence of unlawfully obtaining personal information. Specifically Huppert called for the commencement of sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which together are titled: “Unlawfully obtaining etc. personal data”. The effect would be to make unlawful disclosure of personal information an imprisonable offence. Notably section 78 provides for an exemption for journalism and disclosure in the public interest. This is an area of law which Leveson recommended be strengthened, in paragraph 54 on page 1811 which is in volume four of his report.

I think Julian Huppert chose an excellent topic for his question (though the response was a non-committal: “we need to look at this very carefully”).

Generally our existing laws were already up to the task and the key failing was a lack of action by the police but had the stronger sentencing powers for data protection breaches been in place it would have perhaps acted as a greater deterrent and allowed justice to be dispatched rapidly, nipping problems in the bud.

Self regulation of the press accompanied by the enforcement of the criminal law against journalists and their sources who breach it is I think the only option for press regulation which will be accepted by the British people, our elected representatives in Parliament, and the press themselves.

Too Narrowly Focused

Leveson’s states in paragraph 3.14 on page 1754 that his newly proposed regulation system would need to cover “all significant news publishers” if it is to be effective.

However Leveson appears dismissive of online news saying in paragraph 3.3 on p737: “People will not assume what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular assurance or accuracy”. The Leveson proposals appear focused on the dead-tree media, companies who produce newspapers and magazines. In this respect I think his conclusions are short sighted and out touch so direct long term impact and relevance is unlikely.

When this was raised in the House of Common by Angie Bray MP the Prime Minister avoided the question, however we are yet to see if the scope of whatever action the government proposes to take following the Leveson inquiry and associated recommendations will extend to publications online, and if so by those other than publishers of newspapers and magazines.

p1598 of Leveson’s report notes that the system proposed by the Press Complaint’s Commission Chair, Lord Hunt and Lord Black, the Chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF) ought cover:

companies in the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man who are responsible for publishing printed newspaper or magazine titles in the UK, and their related websites, and web only publisher or news aggregators with content viewable in the UK

In paragraph 6.11 on p1792 Leveson’s report states: “There will be few who think that a parish magazine or small newsletter should be compulsorily subject to a regulatory system”, however this is a subject Leveson only discusses, he does not make a related recommendation and nor does he attempt to translate what he says into the contemporary world. He doesn’t consider how an individual’s personal website or Twitter feed might be treated under a new regulatory regime.

Freelancers and Other Individuals

Meg Hillier MP asked the Prime Minister about the impact of actions following Leveson’s recommendations on Freelancers, again no substantive answer was forthcoming.

I think it is worth noting that those acting on their own, be it publishing their output themselves, or via corporately owned newspapers and websites, take much greater personal risks than staff members of media organisations generally do. The risks are particularly great in relation to defamation, where court rulings appear to be particularly disproportionate and writing material responsibly, in the public interest, can result in huge costs and stress through even responding to legal action, or merely threats, never mind if it actually gets to court and damages are awarded against an individual.

Our society’s got something wrong where the penalties and consequences of speeding, punching someone, or drink-driving can be much lighter than those which could potentially be imposed on someone for getting something wrong, even entirely without malice, in a tweet, blog post, or article while trying to inform or take part in public debate on a subject.

See: More on defamation and my suggestions on Libel Reform.

Courts

Mediation and out of court settlements have their place but I would much rather see our courts operating in a speedier, more accessible and affordable manner than continuing the trend we see in all sorts of areas at the moment in the UK to try and find ways to avoid our courts and their failings. Our courts system ought be an effective option for everyone seeking justice or redress. If Leveson had recommended a shake up of our courts his legacy could well have been a significant rebalancing of power in our society and bringing justice and fairness not just to people’s treatment by the media but to other areas of life too.

There is already an incentive for companies (and to an extent individuals) to act responsibly and have processes and policies in place to deal with complaints and circumstances which could, if not resolved as it is rational to seek to avoid expensive, time consuming and risky, legal action.

Changing Culture of Police Contacts With Reporters

Public reporting of meetings between chief police officers and the press is unlikely itself to have a significant impact (it is too easily avoided, eg. by getting a junior officer to pass on the message), but what might have an effect is the culture change which ought result, with police officers of all ranks questioning if their contact with the media, and what they’re saying, is appropriate.

Choose Good Quality Journalism

The point that the press only survives because people choose to buy newspapers and magazines, and visit the associated websites, is in my view a really important one.

Personally I don’t get my news via newspapers. Twitter generally alerts me to the fact there is a story and I use Google to find the best source to find out more if I’m interested (if Twitter isn’t pointing me to the source of the story, a decent fraction of tweets do link to the source of information they’re sharing).

If people want high quality, well referenced, reporting with links to the sources of information then they’ve got to choose that, and give positive feedback to those organisations which on occasion achieve that. As with so many things at its root we’ve got a need for better education, and people thinking through the consequences of their actions.

Links:

• Leveson report: Executive Summary. Volume 1 , Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4.

The post Regulating Reporting appeared first on Richard Taylor.

Cambridgeshire’s Police & Crime Commissioner Graham Bright gained the first choice votes of only 2.48% of the electorate in Cambridge.

In Cambridge, as in Peterborough, Labour’s Ed Murphy was the most popular first choice. More voters in Cambridge spoilt their papers than voted for two of the candidates.

The first preference results for Cambridge were as follows:

Full Results

Potential Disenfranchisement of Cambridge Residents

Many people, including elected representatives, in Cambridge feel disenfranchised by the Conservative run County Council as there are no councillors representing city wards on the ruling group. This view has often been expressed at the city’s area committee meetings over the last few years.

When I spoke to the Liberal Democrat candidate Rupert Moss-Eccardt shortly after his elimination from the election for Police and Crime Commissioner he noted Cambridge residents had already been disenfranchised by the arrangements for making appointments to the then Police Authority. The Conservative run County Council were the major influence on its membership and only one elected councillor from Cambridge was on the body. Moss-Eccardt said he expected more of the same.

Surprisingly perhaps, given their third place result in the city, Moss-Eccardt suggested there is some political capital for the Conservatives to maintain in Cambridge now and there will be a need for the Conservatives to take some interest in serving the city’s residents. He also noted that what goes on in the City does impact resident of the surrounding sub-region.

Moss-Eccardt said he hoped Commissioner Graham Bright would attend Cambridge’s area committees (where to-date councillors have democratically set local policing priorities and held the police to account for their performance against them). He also expressed a hope that Commissioner Bright would attend and participate in Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership.

Moss-Eccardt said if the commissioner doesn’t do that (engage with bodies in Cambridge) then Cambridge is going to suffer.

Local Trends

Cambridge’s MP Julian Huppert and local councillors as well as prospective candidates will probably be looking with interest at the results of the Police and Crime Commissioner elections with a view to looking at how it might indicate changing views in the City which could impact the future make-up of the City Council and who may get elected our next MP.

There has recently been a swing towards Labour at the City Council at the last elections, and these results, with Labour gaining 1.7 times as many votes as the Liberal Democrats perhaps reinforces this direction of travel. However given the low turnout, and that some people at least vote on the basis of more than simply the party branding, there may not be a direct connection between this result and what would be expected in election for other positions.

Headline Figure Calculation

2,276 voters in Cambridge put Tory Graham Bright as their first choice for Police & Crime Commissioner. The city’s electorate was 91,669. (See details of turnout and the election results.

The post Only 2.48 Percent of Cambridge’s Electorate Made Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright Their First Choice appeared first on Richard Taylor.

On the 21st of November I went to Huntingdon where a a meeting of Cambridgeshire’s Shadow Police and Crime Panel was scheduled to take place. A meeting paper gave the “title/purpose” of the meeting as “Meet the Commissioner”.

The meeting was listed online as being “private”, however in my view it met the legal definition of a local government “joint committee” and therefore ought, by law, have been open to the public (more). This view has been supported by the Centre for Public Scrutiny.

I was prepared to observe, report on, and if permitted film the meeting. I think the first meeting between the panel and the Police and Crime Commissioner is highly significant and likely to set the tone for their relationship over the commissioner’s term of office. I would have liked to have heard, for example, what the Commissioner wanted the panel to do to support him in his role, what information the commissioner will be making available to the panel. I would have also been interested to hear the panel let the commissioner know what views they have come to in relation to their role, and the approach they want to take, during the series of “shadow” meetings they have been holding.

Today, the defeated Labour candidate has used my site to reiterate the pledge he made during his campaign, that he would not meet the Police and Crime Panel in secret session. The fact Commissioner elect Graham Bright was prepared to take part in the secret meeting appears to me to be at odds with his declaration of acceptance of office in which he promised:

I will take all steps within my power to ensure transparency of my decisions, so that I may be properly held to account by the public.

Elsewhere

In Sussex the first meeting between the Police and Crime Panel and Police and Crime Commissioner there is to be broadcast live on the internet and made available online for six months (See Press Release). This is dramatically at odds with what has been seen in Cambridgeshire.

What Happened at Huntington

I arrived at the Huntingdonshire District Council offices more than half an hour before the scheduled start of the meeting. I made a video outside describing why I was there and I what I intended to do; I also shared these plans with Cambridge City Council leader Cllr Bick when he arrived.

When I approached the reception desk to ask if I could observe the meeting they told me they had been told it was a private meeting. I explained why I thought it ought be open to the public (as a decision making joint committee) and they offered to call someone to come and talk to me.

I spoke to a number of officers, a number of whom appeared to be supportive of my efforts to find out what was going on in the meeting, and what the commissioner was saying. One officer confirmed to me the Commissioner, Graham Bright, was present.

Eventually, well after the 13.00 scheduled start time of the meeting, Alex Daynes of Peterborough City Council came to see me in the reception area saying he was one of those responsible for administering the panel. I explained I wanted to observe the meeting, and why I thought it ought, by law be open to the public. Mr Daynes said he would let the panel’s chair know I was present and the basis of my request to observe the meeting.

I was informed that Commissioner Bright had left the meeting, to “return to Police Headquarters” and one officer even suggested I go there and ask him about his attendance at the panel’s private meeting.

I waited in the reception area for over an hour, before deciding to go elsewhere having given my mobile number to the receptionists in case there was any progress. I went out to walk around the building where the meeting was taking place and generally look around.

A delegation headed by the chair of Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Panel, Cllr Mac McGuire, appeared. Cllr McGuire approached me asking if I’d seen a tweet from Cllr Martin Curtis (another member of the panel). I had not at that time, but now have, the tweet states:

@RTaylorUK Once again you have your facts wrong.

Cllr McGuire explained he was concerned that I was saying Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright had attended the meeting of the panel. McGuire told me that the Commissioner had been present to meet members of the panel, but had not stayed for the formal element of the meeting where they considered the items on their agenda.

I gained the impression Cllr McGuire and officers supporting the panel thought it would be wrong if the Commissioner was present for the panel’s discussions on things like how to carry our confirmation hearings. They might well have a point, however the Chief Executive of the Police Authority, who will become a member of the Commissioner’s staff and is highly likely to be appointed as Chief of Staff, and therefore subject to a confirmation hearing, herself was present at the panel meeting. So if there was a conflict of interest with the Commissioner being present, there would also certainly be one with the presence of the Chief Executive.

My view that how much of, and which elements of, the meeting the commissioner was present for is rather academic and a distraction from the key matter, that he was there, meeting members of the panel, in secret session.

To try and pin down what happened I asked Cllr McGuire at what time the informal meet and greet with the commissioner happened. The reason I asked this is that I saw panel members arriving for the meeting, and most arrived within the last 5-10 minutes before the scheduled 13.00 start time of the meeting. Cllr McGuire refused to answer that question; he also refused to tell me if Cllr Bick of Cambridge City Council had arrived in time to meet the Commissioner.

I did not see Commissioner Bright despite keeping an eye on those coming and going, and seeing all those approaching the reception desk, and many of those coming and going from the building containing the meeting for over half an hour before the meeting, to around an hour after it was scheduled to start. I don’t know if he was smuggled out of a back door so he didn’t have to face any questions from me.

Papers

Meeting papers were made available online before the meeting however the papers for the item on the appointment of non-councillor volunteers was incomplete (due to interviews not having been carried out at the time of publication). The online papers were not updated when that information did become available, an FOI request might be required to obtain their release.

Decisions

No decision notices have been placed on the meeting’s webpage, meaning there is no official source of information on any decisions the panel made, or what the Commissioner said to the panel or what the panel said to the Commissioner.

The post Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright Meets Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel Members Behind Closed Doors appeared first on Richard Taylor.

On Tuesday the 20th of November 2012 I attended the Swavesey police priority setting meeting. As the first local police priority setting meeting since the election of Graham Bright as Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner I expected him to be there, but he didn’t turn up.

The area covered included Grantchester, Longstanton, Girton, Bar Hill, Papworth, Willingham and Over and other villages. Those present included parish councillors and neighbourhood watch representatives, ie. people who given Mr Bright’s campaign I would expect him to be interested in hearing from.

While Mr Bright wasn’t present, Mr Fuller, the recently retired Cambridgeshire Police community engagement officer, was there and he appeared to suggest that he was interested in becoming one of Commissioner Bright’s “field officers”. Mr Fuller reported to the group on Mr Bright’s policy statement, which he has made since being elected, promising increased resources to speedwatch volunteers.

As well as Mr Bright not being present; Cllr Johnstone, who it has been suggested may become his deputy, wasn’t there either despite her own ward being covered.

Tesco

The primary issue discussed was Tesco in Bar Hill. The meeting was told most of Bar Hill’s crime is Tesco related, there are thefts from the shop, people driving off without paying for petrol, and the police are working with the store following well publicised terrible robberies of elderly people in their car park.

The police told the meeting that Tesco, like other major retailers, consider crime from a business point of view and factor in a certain level of loss. The police said they had met local managers who said they don’t get investment from the company centrally in crime prevention unless they are one of the worst stores for crime in the country. The police said they were taking an approach of working with the store but trying to insist that the store do their bit too. The police said the store had cut the number of security guards it employs.

Inspector Savage questioned some aspects of Tesco’s operating proceedure, for example why when they spot someone they think will shoplift inside the store do they let them get outside before going after them. The Inspector appeared to be suggesting they could do more to prevent the theft from occuring, rather than simply observing it happen, and questioned the nature of targets Tesco security guards might be working to.

During the meeting Clare Welford tweeted asking why Tesco don’t take payment for petrol before letting people have it. Sgt Rogerson responded to say this too was a business decision, because if they took payment first people would be less likely to go into the shop and buy additional items which are more profitable than the petrol.

Inspector Savage said that he wanted Tesco to be better at reporting crime; for example he said he wanted them to provide statements and CCTV footage proactively as a matter of course when reporting people driving off without paying for petrol

Other Bar Hill Points

Burglaries in Bar Hill were discussed; these involve UPVC door and windows being damaged, though the police were unclear if this was coincidental and simply reflected the fact most homes in Bar Hill have such doors and windows.

The police reported that no repeat offenders lived in Bar Hill and the crime was almost all committed by people coming in from outside.

One person present called for the Parish Council to install ANPR on the single road into the village; to help identify these criminals coming in from outside.

Lighting in the recreation ground had been raised by young people in Bar Hill as elsewhere; rats on the recreation ground were also mentioned. Sgt Rogerson said he had seen one and tweeted to admit he: “ran like a girl”.

HGV drivers parking in a manner which causes other drivers inconvenience as they pop into Tesco was mentioned; there were calls for double yellow lines.

Other Notable Points

• Nineteen members of the public and five police officers in uniform (some were PCSOs) were present at the start of the meeting, with other people arriving late. The police came in three marked police vehicles.
• A detailed report was prepared for the meeting, it was available in hard copy, but has not been placed online. A member of the public other than me requested it ought be placed online.
• Sgt Rogerson said that in cases of bank fraud a crime has been committed so he is happy to record it. This is interesting as typically now the police refuse to accept or record reports of such crime.
• 74 under 17s responded to survey in advance of the Swavesey Police Panel meeting. Lack of lighting making areas feel unsafe was there top theme. Those present did not prioritise acting on it, though the police promised to follow it up and report back to those who responded.
• In relation to busway crime a criminal ASBO is being sought which will require the subject to stay at least 5m from any cycle rack.
• “Community Impact Teams” are being introduced; these were described as a replacement for “named officers for named beats”
• Insp Savage noted that continuation of PCSOs (or not) will be matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner.
• Sgt Rogerson said that the way the force deals with Speedwatch (volunteers with speed guns) data is improving; he said it was now, as of ten days ago, being processed centrally (avoiding the need for PCs and PCSOs who’re not expert in such things having to import lots of data into Excel and try to make sense of it and draw graphs).
• The police said they were targeting those who purposely speed up though speed watch speed checks.
• A dispersal order for boy racers in Papworth is awaiting approval (or not) by South Cambridgeshire District Councillors. The meeting was told the order has been drafted so it could be extended to other areas. A councillor said the public in Papworth’s main concern was that there would be a serious accident and those involved could be badly injured, the police agreed this was the main thrust of the calls and correspondence they had received on the matter. The police also said the problem appeared to be getting better.
• Swavesey has lots of police attention, apparently due to active neighbourhood watcher Polly Wilderspin. There had only been twenty-two recorded crimes in the village in the last quarter, these were listed, they were mainly “rural crimes” eg. diesel theft and interestingly five of the twenty-two were things which police officers on patrol had come across rather than them being reported to the police by the public.
• There had been one assault on someone by a stranger in Willingham in the quarter. A PCSO had happened upon this happening and related to their presence an arrest was carried out a couple of hours later. The offender has been sentenced to two years in prison.
• Youths had been asked if the police were approachable; the police reported they had got the full spectrum of responses to that question.
• The police noted concerns had been raised in relation to Longstanton Parish Council however Sgt Rogerson said “nothing which needs investigating has yet been reported”.
• Cllr Reynolds said he is a dog walker.
• Concern about burglaries in Dry Drayton was raised, there are 1-2 per quarter, but it’s a small place.
• The police said certain Mercedes models were being targeted for catalytic converter theft but Mercedes are not helping the police warn potential targets.
• Peddlers licences (for door-to-door trading) were discussed. Sgt Rogerson said he is yet to see a genuine one.
• Insp Savage suggested one resident had been silly sending £10,000 to Spain to pay for a car he had been promised would be delivered, but had not been. He questioned what the police were supposed to do in cases like that.
• Priorities were set, however with no information from the Commissioner it was not clear if they would take effect for more than the just over 24 hours before he formally takes up office.
• A couple of people said they had recently, within the last month, experienced long waits on the non-emergency number 101. One said 17-20 minutes. Insp. Savage said he thought investment was being made to seek improvements. There was also an issue raised with the personal voicemail for individual officers which has been broken too
• The meeting was tweeted live by both me, and @SouthCambsCops The police agreed to follow up the responses to the youth survey and additionally set the following priorities:

  The priorities were set by Inspector Savage summarising the meeting then asking if there were any ojections. There was no representative democracy, no vote of elected councillors.

  Priorities set 1)Willingham opening out local policing 2)Prioritise house burglary 3)Road safety across neighbourhood 4)Report,section 30

  — Cambs police (@SouthCambsCops) November 20, 2012

The post Commissioner Bright Misses First Public Police Priority Setting Meeting Following Election appeared first on Richard Taylor.