I was told:
1. The helicopter can be called for by all police officers, even the most junior.
2. For the specific period I asked about there had been a number of very important people, eg. Prince Charles visiting the city. Prince Charles &co. don’t like a police helicopter buzzing them all day, so they circle it over our homes in North Cambridge while they visits the City Centre, West Cambridge etc.

I have been asking for a “heli-log” along the lines of that produced by other forces; that would give us a starting point to campaign for more reasonable use of the helicopter. In the North of the city last year it was even used to catch a loose dog; though well that sounds trivial and inappropriate we’ve got to be careful not to judge without the full facts. I think the police ought be more open so the public can judge if they are using their resources effectively.

One of my more recent articles on holding the police to account is available at:

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambspa-february-2010-consultation.html

Something I am concerned about at the moment is the number of high speed crashes at junctions in the city involving the police; there have been a large handful in the last year. A number of times in the last year I have seen instances where the first officers on the scene have got things under control but police vehicles have kept coming for many minutes - speeding and sirens blaring.

I agree but I don’t see rigorous oversight in areas I think those voting Lib Dem would rightly expect it; for example over Disperal Zones, using S.59 powers to deny due process - the Liberals aren’t even strong on Liberty in this city.

Following a public question I asked at the Community Services Scrutiny Committee officers said that the licence decision was a “delegated” decision and Cllr Smith said:

“It would be wholly improper of me to exert influence over officers.”

More on my new article at:

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/prompting-council-strawberry-fair-statement.html

In fact, the genius of Thatcher and Reagan was to understand that there was economic value in giving people freedom, and that this could drive an improvement in the quality of life that the left wing regimes of the day simply could not match.

No system is perfect, and certainly some prefer the dull (and often painful) certainties of socialism to the bright opportunities of ecomonic lberalism, but overall I am very glad that the West won the cold war, and it doesn’t surprise me in the least that 13 years of Labour has left the country showing a number of symptoms of the sov block that members of this government so worshiped when they were youngsters.

The New Labour law - S.27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 - gives the police the power to disperse those they think might contribute to alcohol related crime or disorder. Application of that law could be used on the day the fair was to be held.

No major party is committing to tighten up these dodgy laws which are wide open to abuse. Even the Lib Dems are prepared to support dispersal (and the abuse of antisocial behaviour laws) where they are in power in Cambridge despite nationally being pro-civil liberties.

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cllr-julie-smith-flailing-in-efforts-to-bring-city-council-chainsaws-under-democratic-control.html

More worryingly even a motion passed unanimously by full council is not having the desired effect - that’s a problem both with councillors and the Chief Executive:

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-decide-to-make-a-huge-leap-forward-in-terms-of-openness-and-transparency.html

If that is the case then why didn’t they work with the organisers rather than trying to sabotage Strawberry Fair with their drug arrests PR exercises, their ridiculous demands for payment, and now by opposing the licence needed to hold the event.

What concerns me most about this, even more than losing Strawberry Fair for a year, is the way that the police are taking an increasingly political role in Cambridge (and presumably elsewhere).

It is a well-funded police legal team that was largely responsible for preventing a new pub opening at Cambridge Leisure, for stopping Tesco getting an alcohol licence in their Mill Road store, and now for cancelling Strawberry Fair.

Whatever people believe about the rights and wrongs of each of these three examples, what they have in common is that the police have managed to prevent lawful activity that was desired by a significant proportion of the local community - because they think it will make their jobs harder.

Imagine what would happen if they took the same approach with football, and tried to get the troublesome matches banned. No crime, but no fun for the law-abiding majority either.

http://www.strawberry-fair.org.uk/

Now the fair has been cancelled then the question has to turn to what will happen when people turn up anyway on the day - how will that issue be managed and policed. I think it is crucial the council and police come up with a statement on how they’ll treat people gathering, possibly with drugs and alcohol, on the common on the day - even if there’s no fair.

Some updates / insights from Thursday’s Friends of Midsummer Common meeting:

*In previous years the fair has used the council’s licence. This year the council refused to allow the fair to use their existing licence for the common and required the fair to apply for their own. Questions need to be asked about the role of councillors in making this decision. Councillors are responsible and ought to have had a grip on what was happening. It’s not good enough for councillors like Julie Smith to say officers took the decision - she and her fellow elected representatives are responsible.

*Mr Wilson said it was expected that the magistrates might not have determined the licensing appeal to one week before the event. (Though documents I have seen suggest the appeal would have been scheduled urgently). The statement from Strawberry Fair cites the timing of the appeal as part of their reason for cancelling the event.

*Council officer Alistair Wilson and Executive Councillor Julie Smith couldn’t agree if the council had given permission for the common to be used for the event. Julie Smith said it had, Mr Wilson said no request had been received.

*So far this year there had been no “stakeholder meetings” between the fair and local residents and the Friends of Midsummer Common as there had been last year.

I think the police ought to have policed this event; and not sought to stop it. I think the police authority ought review the police’s actions and the way they’ve acted towards the fair.

Eric

Cheers

Ozzy

Embedding does not appear to be working yet (perhaps it needs moderation by LiveLeak?)
The video be viewed via:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=036_1267802541

Who’s going to report on that - if our local councillors have gagged the local paper!

My position makes on the video makes sense to me:

1. Once the police used this video in their submission to the licensing committee it became a key document which it is in the public interest to have in the public domain. It is essential to the understanding of the debate and for those wishing to assess the councillor’s performance - something we all have to be mindful of now as it comes up to election time when we’ll be asked if we think they’re doing a good job or not.

2. While I think that now the police have produced and used this video in this way it is right for it to be made available to the public, there are elements of the way in which the footage shown appears to have been collected which I disagree with and think was inappropriate.

With regard to the police helicopter, I think there is a major concern for their use at large public events - the result of an engine failure would lead to a very large loss of life.

When I complained to the police about their use, I was told they are used as communication points due to the ineffectiveness of the Tetra radio system.

I agree with the previous commentor about the fair gradually degrading as the day wears on. Perhaps it should return to its roots and become local with no amplified music!