Welcome to the Surrey Constabulary Blog.

The forum for members of the Surrey Constabulary Retired Comrades’ Association:

The picture on the right is a Surrey Constabulary view of Chertsey Road, Woking taken in November 1962.  It shows a smiling 19 year old PC Colin White on patrol and was taken by colleague Paul Holt.  Is it not a frightening thought that this picture is now over fifty, yes 50, years old?

Please keep visiting and keep sending in your thoughts, the blog needs all the views it can get.

Down the right hand-side of this page are a series of links to click on to access anything you wish to read more fully.

Members have been signed up to the blog & circulated with passwords enabling you to post or comment.  Guidance on how to send in posts by email has also been sent out to all members but if you have any problems please let us know via the email addresses shown on the page entitled ‘Surrey Constabulary Retired Comrades’ Association’

PLEASE NOTE: THIS BLOG IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. THEREFORE ONLY MEMBERS CAN COMMENT OR POST.

HOWEVER, INFORMED COMMENT FROM NON-MEMBERS WHO ARE SERVING POLICE OFFICERS OR POLICE STAFF IS WELCOMED AND MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN THIS BLOG:  ANONYMOUSLY IF PREFERRED.

ALL ARE WELCOME TO READ THE BLOG BUT IF YOU VISIT AND DO NOT LIKE ITS CONTENT YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE.

Problems can arise as there is an ongoing struggle between genuine emails and ‘spam’ but we may not be aware unless you drop us a line to let us know you are having problems, thanks.

So do not be shy you only have to click on comments to tell us what you think about any of the posts or you can be really brave and submit your own post!

(Please Note: This blog is self-financed and is run voluntarily, not for profit, as part of a self-help welfare organisation.  It is not an official Surrey Police blog but is run by and on behalf of members of the Surrey Police Retired Comrades Association only.  Click this link if you were searching for the Surrey Police)

Posting to the Surrey Constabulary Blog

“Where law ends, tyranny begins” – John Locke 1690.

Members posting to this blog should be aware that any message that is offensive, insulting, defamatory, or that is in any way unacceptable to the forum moderators, may be edited, withdrawn from the forum, or deleted in its entirety.

Repeated or gross breaches of acceptable standards is likely to result in the person responsible being banned from the site.

As mentioned above comments are usually moderated. However, we do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment posted.

We trust that you will understand the need for such a clear statement about message content but it must be borne in mind that although this is a members-only blog it is open to all to read.

We hope that you will enjoy participating in forum discussions and using the site to its fullest extent.

‘There May be trouble ahead’

Policing

Blue Collar Conservatism

See – Theresa May’s Alien-like struggle with the Police Federation

Plus – Theresa May to Police Federation: you don’t like me, but I don’t care

‘The hardest question came from Guru-Murthy. “Wasn’t the whole point about the boy who cried wolf,” he asked, “that there was a wolf and the boy died?” If looks could kill. May smiled wanly, making a mental note to sack her speechwriter. And to remind the new culture secretary to make life as difficult for Channel 4 as for the BBC.’

Severance

‘There May be trouble ahead’ – Let’s Face The Music And Dance

Facebook ‘tracks all visitors, breaching EU law’

FacebookGuardian Exclusive: People without Facebook accounts, logged out users, and EU users who have explicitly opted out of tracking are all being tracked, report says

Facebook tracks the web browsing of everyone who visits a page on its site even if the user does not have an account or has explicitly opted out of tracking in the EU, extensive research commissioned by the Belgian data protection agency has revealed.

The report, from researchers at the Centre of Interdisciplinary Law and ICT (ICRI) and the Computer Security and Industrial Cryptography department (Cosic) at the University of Leuven, and the media, information and telecommunication department (Smit) at Vrije Universiteit Brussels, was commissioned after an original draft report revealed Facebook’s privacy policy breaches European law.

The researchers now claim that Facebook tracks computers of users without their consent, whether they are logged in to Facebook or not, and even if they are not registered users of the site or explicitly opt out in Europe. Facebook tracks users in order to target advertising.

The issue revolves around Facebook’s use of its social plugins such as the “Like” button, which has been placed on more than 13m sites including health and government sites.

Facebook places tracking cookies on users’ computers if they visit any page on the facebook.com domain, including fan pages or other pages that do not require a Facebook account to visit.

When a user visits a third-party site that carries one of Facebook’s social plug-ins, it detects and sends the tracking cookies back to Facebook – even if the user does not interact with the Like button, Facebook Login or other extension of the social media site.

EU privacy law states that prior consent must be given before issuing a cookie or performing tracking, unless it is necessary for either the networking required to connect to the service (“criterion A”) or to deliver a service specifically requested by the user (“criterion B”).

The same law requires websites to notify users on their first visit to a site that it uses cookies, requesting consent to do so.

A cookie is a small file placed on a user’s computer by a website that stores settings, previous activities and other small amounts of information needed by the site. They are sent to the site on each visit and can therefore be used to identify a user’s computer and track their movements across the web.

“We collect information when you visit or use third-party websites and apps that use our services. This includes information about the websites and apps you visit, your use of our services on those websites and apps, as well as information the developer or publisher of the app or website provides to you or us,” states Facebook’s data usage policy, which was updated this year.

Facebook’s tracking practices have ‘no legal basis’

An opinion published by Article 29, the pan-European data regulator working party, in 2012 stated that unless delivering a service specifically requested by the user, social plug-ins must have consent before placing a cookie. “Since by definition social plug-ins are destined to members of a particular social network, they are not of any use for non-members, and therefore do not match ‘criterion B’ for those users.”

The same applies for users of Facebook who are logged out at the time, while logged-in users should only be served a “session cookie” that expires when the user logs out or closes their browser, according to Article 29.

The Article 29 working party has also said that cookies set for “security purposes” can only fall under the consent exemptions if they are essential for a service explicitly requested by the user – not general security of the service.

Facebook’s cookie policy updated this year states that the company still uses cookies if users do not have a Facebook account, or are logged out, to “enable us to deliver, select, evaluate, measure and understand the ads we serve on and off Facebook”.

The social network tracks its users for advertising purposes across non-Facebook sites by default. Users can opt out of ad tracking, but an opt-out mechanism “is not an adequate mechanism to obtain average users informed consent”, according to Article 29.

“European legislation is really quite clear on this point. To be legally valid, an individual’s consent towards online behavioural advertising must be opt-in,” explained Brendan Van Alsenoy, a researcher at ICRI and one of the report’s author.

Opt-out mechanism actually enables tracking for the non-tracked

The researchers also analysed the opt-out mechanism used by Facebook and many other internet companies including Google and Microsoft.

Users wanting to opt out of behavioural tracking are directed to sites run by the Digital Advertising Alliance in the US, Digital Advertising Alliance of Canada in Canada or the European Digital Advertising Alliance in the EU, each of which allow bulk opting-out from 100 companies.

But the researchers discovered that far from opting out of tracking, Facebook places a new cookie on the computers of users who have not been tracked before.

“If people who are not being tracked by Facebook use the ‘opt out’ mechanism proposed for the EU, Facebook places a long-term, uniquely identifying cookie, which can be used to track them for the next two years,” explained Günes Acar from Cosic, who also co-wrote the report. “What’s more, we found that Facebook does not place any long-term identifying cookie on the opt-out sites suggested by Facebook for US and Canadian users.”

The finding was confirmed by Steven Englehardt, a researcher at Princeton University’s department of computer science who was not involved in the report: “I started with a fresh browsing session and received an additional ‘datr’ cookie that appears capable of uniquely identifying users on the UK version of the European opt-out site. This cookie was not present during repeat tests with a fresh session on the US or Canadian version.”

Facebook sets an opt-out cookie on all the opt-out sites, but this cookie cannot be used for tracking individuals since it does not contain a unique identifier. Why Facebook places the “datr” cookie on computers of EU users who opt out is unknown.

‘Privacy-friendly’ design

For users worried about tracking, third-party browser add-ons that block tracking are available, says Acar: “Examples include Privacy Badger, Ghostery and Disconnect. Privacy Badger replaces social plug-ins with privacy preserving counterparts so that users can still use social plug-ins, but not be tracked until they actually click on them.

“We argue that it is the legal duty of Facebook to design its services and components in a privacy-friendly way,” Van Alsenoy added. “This means designing social plug-ins in such a way that information about individual’s personal browsing activities outside of Facebook are not unnecessarily exposed.”

Facebook is being investigated by the Dutch data protection authority, which asked the social network to delay rollout of its new privacy policy, and is being probed by the Article 29 working party.

A Facebook spokesperson said: “This report contains factual inaccuracies. The authors have never contacted us, nor sought to clarify any assumptions upon which their report is based. Neither did they invite our comment on the report before making it public. We have explained in detail the inaccuracies in the earlier draft report (after it was published) directly to the Belgian DPA, who we understand commissioned it, and have offered to meet with them to explain why it is incorrect, but they have declined to meet or engage with us. However, we remain willing to engage with them and hope they will be prepared to update their work in due course.”

“Earlier this year we updated our terms and policies to make them more clear and concise, to reflect new product features and to highlight how we’re expanding people’s control over advertising. We’re confident the updates comply with applicable laws including EU law.”

Van Alsenoy and Acar, authors of the study, told the Guardian: “We welcome comments via the contact email address listed within the report. Several people have already reached out to provide suggestions and ideas, which we really appreciate.”

“To date, we have not been contacted by Facebook directly nor have we received any meeting request. We’re not surprised that Facebook holds a different opinion as to what European data protection laws require. But if Facebook feels today’s releases contain factual errors, we’re happy to receive any specific remarks it would like to make.”

Facebook dislike

Facebook’s privacy policy breaches European law, report finds

Leave Facebook if you don’t want to be spied on, warns EU

See – Facebook ‘tracks all visitors, breaching EU law’

Get Ghostery by clicking this link

Police and Fire Service Fairer Commutation Campaign

As many have reminded me, Facebook is not to everyones taste, so I am placing information on here too.

I am grateful to the Police and Fire Service Fairer Commutation Campaign on Facebook for their detailed information and for the campaign they are waging to get (in our case) Police Pensioners who retired between 1998 and 2006 justice in terms of the pension they received.


In case you do not pick up on it, PO stands for Pensions Ombudsman. GAD stands for the Government Actuary’s Department. CF is commutation factor.

In a nutshell, because of changes in life expectancy the GAD should adjust the way commutation is calculated. There was an unacceptable gap between 1998 and 2006 which, the campaign is saying – and they are right, seriously affected the amount of commutation you will have received. A quick example shows that around £30,000 less for a retiring inspector compared to one who retired after 2006. The Pension Ombudsman ruled in favour of the campaign. The GAD appealed, were overruled and appealed again. We are still awaiting the next decision.

The Detail (short version!?)

Background to the campaign and a call to action.
I thought it might be useful to offer a snapshot of the campaign as a means of welcoming new members, getting them involved quickly and what to do next
Three days ago we had reached a fantastic milestone of 500 members.
Today we will pass the 1000 mark.
Membership has doubled in three days and the rate new members come on board is increasing ever faster.
So first of all can I offer a warm welcome to you and thank you for taking the time to join the group.
I am aware that many of you will not be fully aware of the history and background to this case, so I hope that this passage will address that. It is not meant to be a technical document but a quick fly around to bring you up to where we are just now and what we intend to achieve from now onwards . Dates and figures given below are for illustration purposes but I will provide links to other more detailed information so that you can continue your own research should you wish.
This is just meant to be a ‘ chat’ to those who may be just coming into the campaign with little or no knowledge.
Why are we here today?
Well we all feel aggrieved that we were not given our full entitlement when ” they” calculated our lump sum. We are not seeking extra we just want what we should have got.
How do we know that?
In 2006 the way pension lump sums for the Fire and Police was changed and this meant that lump sum payments increased for those retiring on a given date in 2006
So two people doing the same job, serving alongside each other for thirty years retire. One goes a few weeks, nay days, later than the other and gets an extra 20% in their lump sum.
How did that come about?
It’s because the multiplier or commutation factor that’s used to calculate your lump sum was not reviewed since 2001.
The commutation factor (CF) represents the life expectancy of retirees and as life expectancy changes so must the CF.
The longer you live the more annual pension you forfeit so the lump sum should be increased in line with the increased longevity.
It was discovered in 2006 that the longevity in retirement of firefighters and police officers had increased but the commutation factor was out of date so a new one was applied to calculations from then on.
But what about us, those that retired between the last review of CF around 2001 and 2006?
An Example
For the sake of easy calculations let’s take a final salary of £30,000
The schemes allow us to take a 2/3 pension.
So without commutation that’s a £20,000 p.a pension.
But the scheme allows us to take half pay pension of £15,000
And commute £5000 p.a into a lump sum.
So for giving up the £5k p.a you need to be ‘ compensated’ with a lump sum.
Between 2001 and 2006 a CF of 15 was used
( it is variable dependant on age and length of service)
So that’s £5k multiplied by 15 to give £75k lump sum
But
In 2006 the CF was deemed to be 20 because of the increased life expectancy
So that someone retiring in 2006 were entitled to
£5k multiplied by a factor of 20 to give £100k
Figures are just an illustration
So if they were entitled then so were we
Background
A legal challenge lasting several years has been fought through the courts.
This has involved the Fire Brigades Union, the Police Fed and culminating in a long legal saga between the Pension Ombudsman ( PO) and the Government Actuaries Department (GAD).
This battle , and that’s not too strong a word in context, is now almost over. So it’s not the intention of this post to give a blow by blow account of that, suffice to say that the decision is about to be made any time soon. We cannot influence that decision to any great extent today.
So why are we campaigning and seeking support.
We MAY just may get the decision that maladministration of our schemes took place and we will be entitled to the shortfall in our lump sums.
We have experienced delays after delays, promises that decisions would be reached by a certain date and then over run. We are not talking weeks or months here, we were promised final decisions over 18 months ago and still we have not been given a definite date that you and I could comprehend. We are told the decision will be published in “Spring” ” later this year” but not told which year!
So we are here, now.
Making a din and getting louder, growing stronger by the minutes and the days .
Why if the decision has already been made?
We want the powers that be to know we are watching over the final days of this campaign. Thousands of pairs of eyes scrutinising the outcome.
We want them to know we aren’t going away
We won’t countenance any more delays
And we want our money pronto
When we are fit and able to enjoy it
And also to acknowledge that there are some of our colleagues who have passed on and didn’t get to enjoy what was owed them and many more have fallen into ill health too whilst waiting and waiting.
What can you do now?
Write to your MP and draw their attention to EDM768 ( see link below)
Tell them you expect them to support it if they expect your vote in May
Put other colleagues in the picture
Take a look around the site especially in the ” Files” at the top right corner of this page for some draft letters to MPS and other info.
Background to the campaign and a call to action.
I thought it might be useful to offer a snapshot of the campaign as a means of welcoming new members, getting them involved quickly and what to do next

Why are we here today?
Well we all feel aggrieved that we were not given our full entitlement when ” they” calculated our lump sum. We are not seeking extra we just want what we should have got.
How do we know that?
In 2006 the way pension lump sums for the Fire and Police was changed and this meant that lump sum payments increased for those retiring on a given date in 2006
So two people doing the same job, serving alongside each other for thirty years retire. One goes a few weeks, nay days, later than the other and gets an extra 20% in their lump sum.
How did that come about?
It’s because the multiplier or commutation factor that’s used to calculate your lump sum was not reviewed since 2001.
The commutation factor (CF) represents the life expectancy of retirees and as life expectancy changes so must the CF.
The longer you live the more annual pension you forfeit so the lump sum should be increased in line with the increased longevity.
It was discovered in 2006 that the longevity in retirement of firefighters and police officers had increased but the commutation factor was out of date so a new one was applied to calculations from then on.
But what about us, those that retired between the last review of CF around 2001 and 2006?
An Example
For the sake of easy calculations let’s take a final salary of £30,000
The schemes allow us to take a 2/3 pension.
So without commutation that’s a £20,000 p.a pension.
But the scheme allows us to take half pay pension of £15,000
And commute £5000 p.a into a lump sum.
So for giving up the £5k p.a you need to be ‘ compensated’ with a lump sum.
Between 2001 and 2006 a CF of 15 was used
( it is variable dependant on age and length of service)
So that’s £5k multiplied by 15 to give £75k lump sum
But
In 2006 the CF was deemed to be 20 because of the increased life expectancy
So that someone retiring in 2006 were entitled to
£5k multiplied by a factor of 20 to give £100k
Figures are just an illustration
So if they were entitled then so were we
Background
A legal challenge lasting several years has been fought through the courts.
This has involved the Fire Brigades Union, the Police Fed and culminating in a long legal saga between the Pension Ombudsman ( PO) and the Government Actuaries Department (GAD).
This battle , and that’s not too strong a word in context, is now almost over. So it’s not the intention of this post to give a blow by blow account of that, suffice to say that the decision is about to be made any time soon. We cannot influence that decision to any great extent today.
So why are we campaigning and seeking support.
We MAY just may get the decision that maladministration of our schemes took place and we will be entitled to the shortfall in our lump sums.
We have experienced delays after delays, promises that decisions would be reached by a certain date and then over run. We are not talking weeks or months here, we were promised final decisions over 18 months ago and still we have not been given a definite date that you and I could comprehend. We are told the decision will be published in “Spring” ” later this year” but not told which year!
So we are here, now.
Making a din and getting louder, growing stronger by the minutes and the days .
Why if the decision has already been made?
We want the powers that be to know we are watching over the final days of this campaign. Thousands of pairs of eyes scrutinising the outcome.
We want them to know we aren’t going away
We won’t countenance any more delays
And we want our money pronto
When we are fit and able to enjoy it
And also to acknowledge that there are some of our colleagues who have passed on and didn’t get to enjoy what was owed them and many more have fallen into ill health too whilst waiting and waiting.
What can you do now?
Write to your MP and draw their attention to EDM768 ( see link below)
Tell them you expect them to support it if they expect your vote in May
Put other colleagues in the picture
Take a look around the site especially in the ” Files” at the top right corner of this page for some draft letters to MPS and other info.

Have a look at these links below for more info.
https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/…/police-and-firefig…/

This gives a picture of where we are now , getting matters raised at Westminster
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/768
But make a din, we are getting louder and getting heard in the corridors of power. The pressure being applied by members of this group works. You are part of that now so please use whatever means you can to raise awareness and to make contact with politicians and other leading figures

Have a look at these links below for more info.
https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/…/police-and-firefig…/

This gives a picture of where we are now , getting matters raised at Westminster
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/768
But make a din, we are getting louder and getting heard in the corridors of power. The pressure being applied by members of this group works. You are part of that now so please use whatever means you can to raise awareness and to make contact with politicians and other leading figures

Leveson review proposes sweeping efficiency reforms for justice system

Proposals include penalties for private security firm delays, longer court hours and more use of technology

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2015/1/22/1421959957921/Serco-prison-van-leaving–011.jpg


Private security firms that delay delivering prisoners to court should be subject to stiff financial penalties, according to a judge-led review of the justice system.

Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations for improving efficiency of the country’s outdated criminal proceedings include proposals for extending the hours of magistrates’ courts, expanding the use of video technology and providing more body cameras for police officers. Parliament, it is suggested, may also want to consider when defendants should have the right to opt for more expensive jury trials.

The report, commissioned by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, will be a challenge for the Ministry of Justice given that it calls for transitional funds for transferring to new systems of working at a time of austerity.

Leveson, who chaired the inquiry into press standards, said the review’s purpose was to streamline criminal cases “thereby reducing the cost of criminal proceedings for all public bodies”.

It is also aimed at ensuring “proposed reductions in criminal legal aid can be justified on the basis that … less work will be required to be put into each case because considerable waste and inefficiency in the system … has been eliminated”.

Renegotiating contracts for delivering prisoners to court is one of Leveson’s most radical proposals. The prisoner escort custody service (Pecs) is costly and critical to the efficient functioning of the criminal courts, he noted.

It is supplied by two contractors – Serco, which operates in London and the East of England, and GeoAmey, which covers the remainder of England and Wales. Pecs covers movements between prisons, police stations and courts. There are around 850,000 prisoner movements a year in England and Wales at an average cost of £161.

“The present obligations on contractors to meet a 90% success rate, however, means that one in 10 prisoners may not be ready for court when they ought to be and yet the contractors will still be delivering to contract,” Leveson observed.

“This has a huge knock-on effect on the business of the court in those cases, particularly where one or more prisoner concerned is significantly late. Furthermore, under the present contract for those travelling more than 45 miles, arrival at or after the time that the court is due to start is not a breach of the delivery time …The cost of lost time to the court system appears to be ignored.

“I would urge those responsible to reconsider the terms of any future contract with prisoner movement providers. They must demand greater efficiency and properly manage performance of the contract.”

Remand inmates should be held closer to the courts where they are due to appear, Leveson said.

More flexible opening hours for magistrates courts should be examined to accommodate those who cannot attend normal daytime hearings, Leveson’s review suggests: “This must be one of the few public services which [has] failed to acknowledge the different ways that members of the public now live their lives.”

Enthusiasm for early morning, evening and weekend opening surfaced after the 2011 riots but has fallen into abeyance. “This possibility needs to be considered afresh,” Leveson declared. “We ought to establish the extent to which victims and witnesses will benefit from a more flexible approach to the hours that our courts sit.”

The review also supports greater use of video and conferencing technology to enable suspects to appear from prisons and police stations remotely, as well as video cameras mounted on police officers’ bodies or helmets.

In terms of jury trials, the review points out: “Jurors, required to give up their time to undertake that important civic duty not infrequently at considerable personal cost … are equally not infrequently concerned that their time is ‘wasted’ by what are perceived to be trivial cases.”

The MoJ has already arranged for investment in new courtroom technology but Leveson advised that more transitional funding should be given to HM Courts and Tribunal Service “to provide additional sitting days and available judges to dispose of the legacy work while at the same time processing new cases earlier and with greater efficacy and efficiency”.

Leveson said: “The changes I have recommended are all designed to streamline the way the investigation and prosecution of crime is approached without ever losing sight of the interests of justice.

“Our conduct of criminal trials was designed in the 19th century with many changes and reforms bolted on, especially over the last 30 years. The result is that it has become inefficient, time consuming and, as a result, very expensive.”

From the Guardian

Home Office–A Rule Unto Themselves? Surely Not

From Retired and Angry Blog

I won’t bore you for long today.

Basically, I made an FOI request to the Home Office asking for copies of Risk Assessments and Impact Assessments in relation to the previously announced 5% cut to Police Budgets.

They were due to answer today.

This is the response I have been given;

We are considering your request. Although the Act carries a presumption in favour of disclosure, it provides exemptions which may be used to withhold information in specified circumstances. Some of these exemptions, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to a public interest test. This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding information. The Act allows us to exceed the 20 working day response target where we need to consider the public interest test fully.

The information you have requested is being considered under the exemption in section 35 (1)(a) of the Act, which provides that information can be withheld if it is likely to prejudice the policy making process and the delivery of effective government. This is a qualified exemption(s) and to consider the public interest fully we need to extend the 20 working day response period. We now aim to let you have a full response by 17 February 2015.

In the mean time you may find published reports about this subject matter useful. These include the Peel Assessment and the ‘Meeting the Challenge’ report, carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). Both these reports show that forces are successfully managing to balance their books while protecting the frontline and delivering reductions in crime and are taken into account by Ministers before they make their final decision. To access these reports please visit the following websites:

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/our-work/peel-assessments/the-first-peel-assessment/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/our-work/value-for-money-inspections/policing-in-austerity-meeting-the-challenge/

Additionally, you may like to see the Provisional Police Grant Report and Written Ministerial Statement (WMS). Both these documents explain how the policing budget is calculated and how this calculation is used by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to plan their budgets. Please view these documents at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-finance

Is it just me? Am I being mugged off? What I’m asking for is some reassurance that they have actually considered the consequences of these cuts, not how they work the bloody budgets out in the first place. Surely that IS in the Public Interest.

So, are HMIC party to this illusion that all is well and books are being balanced? Why would Uncle Tom feed Cruella anything other than the truth?

Now I sit and wait for another month and dare I anticipate that the Home Office will invoke the exemption and ultimately refuse like they normally do? Or am I the only one who wants to be satisfied that the risks have been suitably assessed.

More PCCs want tax hike to fund policing

Bedfordshire’s Olly Martins and North Wales’ Winston Roddick want to increase precept amount – but Dyfed Powys’ Christopher Salmon wants to reduce it.

A Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) has become only the second in England to propose a referendum on increasing the chunk of council tax that goes towards funding the police.

Bedfordshire’s Labour PCC Olly Martins’ plan for a council tax precept hike of almost 16 per cent is likely to prove controversial since it goes well beyond the government imposed cap of 2 per cent – meaning a vote must be held.

He is consulting residents to find out whether they want to pay more for policing – and he says the cost of holding a referendum can only be justified if he can be “reasonably confident” the public will say yes.

A 15.8 per cent increase, amounting to an extra 48p per week for an average council tax Band D household, would fund an additional hundred police officers, Mr Martins (pictured) said.

He said it would also help fund increased management of prolific offenders and extra resources to fight cybercrime and child sexual exploitation.

Bedfordshire Police was warned last year by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that it could go bust in as little as three years.

Residents split

Kevin Hurley, the independent PCC who holds the purse strings in Surrey, also wants to hike up council tax to avoid having to cut police numbers and is currently garnering the opinion of residents with help from pollsters YouGov.

He wants to raise the police share of residents’ council tax by 24 per cent and insists other PCCs are watching developments in his force area closely.

Mr Hurley told PoliceOracle.com: “The government does not understand that the most basic thing underpinning any liberal democracy and economy is maintaining law and order.”

And he said some PCCs were keeping huge amounts of money in reserve – something he branded “appalling”.

So far the vast majority of residents in Surrey appear to be in favour of a referendum being held, according to YouGov.

However, a minority – 32 per cent – say they would vote yes to paying more in tax, while 47 per cent say they would vote no.

The rest say they would either not vote or had not formed any opinion.

Bernard Rix, an expert on police governance, said holding a referendum on any local tax rise on the same date as the general election in May was sensible as it would mean such a poll would be more democratic and the costs lower.

He said: “It’s surprising there are only two PCCs that have said this so far.”

National picture

Local funding of the police via council tax is separate from national funding that comes via the Home Office.

Because matters concerning local taxation are devolved in Wales, Welsh PCCs can order unlimited council tax rises in their force areas – without putting them to the vote.

North Wales’ independent PCC Winston Roddick’s proposed rise of 3.44 per cent has warranted barely a mention in the media.

Meanwhile, Christopher Salmon, his Conservative counterpart in Dyfed Powys, wants to reduce the precept by 5 per cent.

While PCCs nationally are not all divided along party lines on this issue, it is notable that Hertfordshire’s David Lloyd – another Conservative – is so far the only PCC in England to propose that the amount residents pay towards funding the police should be frozen in the coming financial year.

Many others want below 2 per cent rises. Conservative Julia Mulligan, PCC for North Yorkshire, says she is “minded to implement a 1.99 per cent precept increase.”

Manchester’s Tony Lloyd and Liverpool’s Jane Kennedy also want precept rises of close to 2 per cent.

Under rules brought in by Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles local authorities as well as PCCs are obliged to hold a referendum on any council tax rises that go above the 2 per cent threshold he imposed.
From Police Oracle

Past our limit: Met Fed’s anti-cuts campaign

Hard-hitting approach follows similar public awareness drive in Essex.


The chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation fears it will take an officer being killed or seriously injured for cuts to be halted.

Following yesterday’s launch of the Met Fed’s CutsHaveConsequences campaign, Chairman John Tully told PoliceOracle.com that something in the police service will break unless changes are made.

The three-month campaign – which includes a hard-hitting video (below) – follows on from a similar drive in Essex, aimed at informing the public of “dangerous” changes to policing.

“This is very much a London campaign but I know many other federations are thinking of doing something similar,” Mr Tully said.

“A national campaign would probably have had more impact but may lose some locality which is important in getting the message across. We are contacting all London MPs, assembly members and the Home Office to raise our concerns, and we urge the public to do the same.”

The video highlights the £1.4 million loss in funding which the Met has faced over the last four years.

“Neighbourhood policing is the key to everything and it is being decimated because officers have so many competing demands,” said Mr Tully.

“The connection with the community is being lost. There used to be one sergeant, three constables and two PSCOs on every ward in London, and now we are lucky if there is one sergeant covering two or three wards.

“They say crime is coming down, but that could be a result of 63 stations being closed and people not wanting to drive 15 miles to report something.”

While overall crime in London has reduced, violent crime – including rape, assaults and murder – rose by 22 per cent in the last year alone.

The impact of budget cuts on the safety of officers themselves is also underlined in the campaign, at a time when there is heightened awareness of the threat to them.

“Since the events in France and Belgium, senior officers have put extra measures in place but we have had feedback from officers saying they don’t feel this is sufficient,” added Mr Tully.

“In the main officers are walking down the street with body armour that is not ballistic proof and might have a baton and spray but if they are on their own they won’t have a taser.

“We recommended we have more double crewing but the Met have said we don’t need to do that yet. We asked for more taser availability which we have been given and for an increase in armoured patrols, to which they have agreed. But you have to remember there are still 750 fewer firearms officers in London than five years ago.”

The Met Police confirmed that it had reviewed the measures it takes to protect the safety of Met officers and the public, but confirmed that no decision has been taken to move automatically to double crewing.

“No decision has been taken to end single patrolling,” said a force spokesman.

“Instead senior officers across London have reviewed and will continue to review procedures as part of our established risk assessment process.

“Our experience of policing London and the UK tells us that our key focus should be on how to prevent attacks. The best way to do this is to engage even more widely with our communities to encourage them to pass on information about individuals who may be behaving in an unusual way or anything they have seen that might give rise for concern.”

Wellbeing of officers is also suffering as a result of budget cuts, Mr Tully added.

He said: “Some detectives have a workload of 20 plus crimes which is unsustainable – how can the number one crime get the same amount of attention as the number 20 crime?

“We are at our limit – in fact we are past it. We are only coping because of the ultimate professionalism of the people working the streets.”

Policing Minister Mike Penning said “there is no question that police will still have the resources to do their important work”.

He said: “The police are making their contribution to reducing the deficit and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary recently found that forces are successfully meeting the challenge of balancing their books while protecting the frontline and delivering reductions in crime.”
From Police Oracle

‘Politicians stupid to claim credit for falling crime’

Former Home Office minister Norman Baker airs outspoken views on crime rates, drugs and tackling online child abuse in an interview with PoliceOracle.com.


It is “stupid” for politicians to claim credit for falling crime, former Home Office minister Norman Baker (pictured) has said.

The Liberal Democrat, who quit his role in government amid a clash with the Home Secretary, said that since crime appeared to be falling across the world governments could not claim overall credit.

He revealed he takes a dim view of politicians who claim their interventions had prompted crime rates to fall, saying: “I thought it was a bit stupid when people did say that, whether in this government or the previous government.

“You can take steps, but for the government to say we have brought all crime down is probably over-egging it.”

Crime was falling everywhere, he said “and no one has got to the bottom of why”.

“I’m not saying governments aren’t without influence,” he added, “but I’m saying there is a societal trend which is occurring anyway.”

After resigning as a minister last year, Mr Baker complained that Home Secretary Theresa May had removed some recommendations from a report around drugs policy ahead of its publication.

A draft copy of the report, produced by civil servants, apparently proposed piloting an approach similar to the one adopted in Portugal, where drug use has been decriminalised.

Mr Baker later described working under the Home Secretary as “like walking through mud”.

He told PoliceOracle.com Mrs May’s “reluctance to delegate” was “tiresome” – but he added that she was “intelligent, committed and more liberal than she is sometimes given credit for”.

‘Treat them’

Mr Baker said the Portuguese approach to drugs helped addicts by treating them as patients and allowing police to focus on the “Mr Bigs”.

He said: “The implication of the hardline lobby is that the bigger the sentence, the less drug use there will be, which is absolutely untrue. There’s no evidence for that, and that’s what the civil service report said.”

The advocate of “evidence based policy” also praised Norfolk’s Chief Constable Simon Bailey, who was recently quoted by a national newspaper as saying that thousands of men who view child abuse images online should be treated by the NHS rather than sent to prison.

Mr Baker said: “Like drug users, treat them. He [CC Bailey] has told me that if we went after every person who is downloading child abuse images, the police would do nothing else.”

He called for more research to find out to whether downloading child abuse images was a “gateway” to physically abusing children.

He added that he would be interested to know “to what extent men downloading child images stops them assaulting children because they have a release, and to what extent it encourages them to go to the next stage.

“You have to research it.

“If it turned out that the vast majority of men that were downloading images didn’t then go on to abuse children in person – ok, they’re being abused where they are being filmed, in the Philippines or wherever – that would suggest to me that a bit more police time should be spent on going after those that do abuse children and a bit less time should be spent on those that download.

“If, on the other hand, it is a gateway thing, then clearly it needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets to children.”
From Police Oracle

Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

Gunmen have shot dead 12 people at the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in an apparent militant Islamist attack.
Four of the magazine’s well-known cartoonists, including its editor, were among those killed, as well as two police officers.
A major police operation is under way to find three gunmen who fled by car.
President Francois Hollande said there was no doubt it had been a terrorist attack “of exceptional barbarity”.
The masked attackers opened fire with assault rifles in the office and exchanged shots with police in the street outside before escaping by car.
They later abandoned the car in Rue de Meaux, northern Paris, where they hijacked a second car.

Death threats
Witnesses said they heard the gunmen shouting “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad” and “God is Great” in Arabic (“Allahu Akbar”).
The number of attackers was initially reported to be two, but French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve later said security services were hunting three “criminals”. He said that Paris had been placed on the highest alert.
Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier, 47, had received death threats in the past and was living under police protection.
French media have named the three other cartoonists killed in the attack as Cabu, Tignous and Wolinski, as well as Charlie Hebdo contributor and French economist Bernard Maris.
The attack took place during the magazine’s daily editorial meeting.
At least four people were critically wounded in the attack.
The satirical weekly has courted controversy in the past with its irreverent take on news and current affairs. It was firebombed in November 2011 a day after it carried a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad.

Global condemnation
The latest tweet on Charlie Hebdo’s account was a cartoon of the Islamic State militant group leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Charlie Hebdo’s website, which went offline during the attack, is showing the single image of “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie) on a black banner, referring to a hashtag that is trending on Twitter in solidarity with the victims.
People had been “murdered in a cowardly manner”, President Hollande told reporters at the scene. “We are threatened because we are a country of liberty,” he added, appealing for national unity.
French government officials are holding an emergency meeting, and President Hollande is due to give a televised address later.
Footage shot by an eyewitness outside the magazine’s office shows two armed men dressed in black approach a wounded police officer lying on a pavement. One of the men shoots the officer in the head, before both men are seen running back towards a black vehicle and driving away.
Eyewitnesses described seeing two black-hooded men entering the building carrying Kalashnikovs, with reports of up to 50 shots fired.
Gilles Boulanger, who works in the same building as the office, told French TV channel Itele: “There were several shots heard in the building from automatic weapons firing in all directions. So then we looked out of the window and saw the shooting was on Boulevard Richard-Lenoir, with the police. It was really upsetting. You’d think it was a war zone.”
Wandrille Lanos, a TV reporter who works across the road, was one of the first people to enter the Charlie Hebdo office after the attack.
“As we progressed into the office, we saw that the number of casualties was very high. There was a lot of people dead on the floor, and there was blood everywhere,” he told the BBC.
After the attack, which occurred at about 10:30 GMT, police warned French media outlets to be on alert and pay attention to security.
The country was already on the alert for Islamist militant attacks after several incidents just before Christmas.
Cars were driven at shoppers in two cities, Dijon and Nantes, and police were attacked by a man wielding a knife in Tours.
While the French government denied the attacks were linked, it announced plans to further raise security in public spaces, including the deployment of about 300 soldiers.
Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005 sparking riots in Muslim countries, says it has stepped up security in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack.

BBC Online News

Police cuts are here to stay, says head of watchdog

Sir Tom Winsor

Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Tom Winsor said forces had mainly “done well” with 20% cuts in the past four years, and more savings were likely.

Newly-knighted Sir Tom said a “smaller service” would have to “work smarter”.

In December, the chief of the Met Police warned public safety would be at risk unless radical measures were taken to deal with funding cuts.
But speaking on BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, Sir Tom said: “Austerity is here to stay.
“The police have already made, and done it well in the main, cuts of 20% in the last four years and they are facing cuts of a further 5% next year.
“There will inevitably be a time where they can’t take any more but let us remember that measured crime has fallen dramatically – but so have the demands made on the police.”
‘Working smaller’
Asked if there was room for further cuts, Sir Tom said: “In some respects there are further efficiencies to be obtained, that is undoubtedly the case.
“They [police forces] need to work smarter because they will be working smaller.”
Sir Tom said forces had not done enough work to analyse new demands being made on them, particularly with regards to cyber crime.
He also said that while any crime reported to the police had to be taken seriously, there were some crimes that were “more serious than others”.
“Nobody would argue that shoplifting is as serious as a violent assault and therefore the police need to look for the crimes that matter most to people, that do greatest harms to communities – serious and organised crime, drugs, violent offences, the grooming and sexual exploitation of children,” he said.
Last month, Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that unless police “act fast” and with “courage” to implement far-reaching reforms, the cuts would endanger public safety.
He suggested police forces in England and Wales should merge and share resources with other emergency services.
Sir Hugh Orde, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ president, has also recently warned that police forces were struggling to deal with reductions in funding.

BBC Online News

China: Fake cops guard government building

No doubt this story will give the present Home Secretary plenty of ideas – although in some senses, it’s already happening… Frown

A local government in north-eastern China has admitted to using security guards to pose as police officers, it’s been reported.

Despite the practice being illegal in China, the Jiamusi city government in Heilongjiang Province issued security guards with police uniforms and even assigned them a rank, Xinhua news agency reports. China’s People Police Law stipulates that police insignias and uniforms are for the exclusive use of the police force. But local government official Zhang Hongbin says the “officers” were brought in to cope with the growing number of complaints filed by the public. “Thousands of petitioners forcibly enter the city government building every year. The situation was out of control sometimes, even when guards were wearing police uniforms,” he says.

The government in Jiamusi had been using fake police officers since 2001, according to Xinhua. One guard told the agency “I’ve been using this police ID number and carrying a Class Three police rank for nearly seven years.” Since the revelation, city authorities have “confiscated” all the uniforms, a spokesman for the government told the Global Times, adding, “We haven’t heard about any punishment.” Some Chinese media have accused the government of abusing the police’s authority and using the guards to deter the public from lodging complaints. “This is an unwise and illegal way of avoiding the problem”, the Beijing Times reports.

BBC story

Bin lorry deaths: Glasgow crash killed five females and male

The six people who were killed by an out-of-control bin lorry in Glasgow city centre included five females and one male, police have confirmed.
The bodies have been removed from the scene and formal identification will take place later. The council bin lorry has also been removed.
Police said 10 others, including the driver, were injured.
The bin lorry crashed in George Square after careering from nearby Queen Street at about 14:30 on Monday.
Of the 10 casualties, four have since been discharged, while six others remain in hospital. Two casualties are in an Intensive Therapy Unit.
The bodies of the victims were removed from the scene overnight in a fleet of private ambulances.
A police investigation is continuing to establish the exact circumstances surrounding the crash.
It is known that the lorry struck a pedestrian outside the Gallery of Modern Art (Goma), then mounted the pavement and travelled hundreds of metres, hitting several others, before crashing into the Millennium Hotel outside Queen Street station.
Eyewitnesses said the lorry driver had been “slumped over his wheel”.
Glasgow City Council confirmed that three employees were in the lorry before the crash.
‘Simply devastating’
George Ieronymdis, owner of the Elia Greek Restaurant on George Square, said he had been told that some of the bin lorry’s crew were seen jumping from the vehicle and holding their heads in their hands, looking devastated.
Dozens of floral tributes have been placed near the scene, and prayers are due to be held by the Church of Scotland later.
Minister Alastair Duncan will be leading the prayers at nearby St George’s Tron Church from 11:30.
The church will be open from 10:00 until 16:00 “for those who wish to say a prayer in their own time and sign a book of condolence”.
Church of Scotland Moderator John Chalmers said: “The news from the city centre of Glasgow just a few days before Christmas is simply devastating.
“For the second year in a row, Glaswegians will have to dig deep into their reserves of compassion and sympathy as they support the families of those who have been killed and injured today.”
Roman Catholic Archbishop Philip Tartaglia will say mass for the victims at St Andrew’s Cathedral in Glasgow on Wednesday.
Police Scotland said there appeared to be nothing “sinister” about the crash and are still carrying out investigations at the scene.
The first minister told BBC Radio’s Good Morning Scotland programme: “The emergency services have been on the scene all night.
“The bodies of those who sadly lost their lives have now been taken away from the scene. There will be a process of formal identification still to go through today.
“Clearly it is the priority of all those involved to find out what caused this incident and give the families of those involved the answers they are seeking.”

BBC News Online

  • Click image to read more

    Click image to read more