In case anyone missed it!
More on this tomorrow, if there's time. At the moment, suffice to say I have very mixed feelings about this news. My interest is primarily in the confidence target, and on the one hand it was always somewhat strange to have a performance target so closely tied to a (highly imperfect) measure of public opinion.
On the other hand, public confidence should be very important to the police and politicians, for lots of good reasons. But if there is no target attached, will anyone really care about it?
Like I say, more tomorrow.
Wednesday 30 June 2010
Sunday 20 June 2010
My right to buy a drink whenever I damn well please
Well OK that might be a bit strong.
It seems we might be on the verge of another overhaul of the licensing laws, partly on the basis that 24 hour licenses are creating more problems than they have solved. I never really bought the idea that introducing 24 hour licensing was going to reduce crime in any meaningful way. Did anyone, really? I suppose hindsight's a wonderful thing, but surely it was obvious that at the very best people were going to drink the same amount as before, just take a bit longer to do it (and remember in most cases we're only talking about an hour or two extra, anyway). In any case, the vast majority of pubs still shut at the same time they always did, according to this story at least.
But the real point is that would be ridiculous to go back to making almost everywhere shut at 11pm. People will still carry on drinking as much as they do now, surely, just in slightly different places (e.g. hideous niteklubs)? Will chucking everyone out at 11 once again really lead to less problems? I seem to remember staggering closing times was one of the main points from a crime prevention point of view - although perhaps this really hasn't worked, as the police seem to be suggesting.
It just seems like a step back to the 1950s, and would be frankly pathetic compared to the situation in most other European countries. What sort of modern, forward looking country (TM basically every politician) doesn't trust it's citizens enough to let them buy a beer or two at 12.30 in the morning, if they want to?
It seems we might be on the verge of another overhaul of the licensing laws, partly on the basis that 24 hour licenses are creating more problems than they have solved. I never really bought the idea that introducing 24 hour licensing was going to reduce crime in any meaningful way. Did anyone, really? I suppose hindsight's a wonderful thing, but surely it was obvious that at the very best people were going to drink the same amount as before, just take a bit longer to do it (and remember in most cases we're only talking about an hour or two extra, anyway). In any case, the vast majority of pubs still shut at the same time they always did, according to this story at least.
But the real point is that would be ridiculous to go back to making almost everywhere shut at 11pm. People will still carry on drinking as much as they do now, surely, just in slightly different places (e.g. hideous niteklubs)? Will chucking everyone out at 11 once again really lead to less problems? I seem to remember staggering closing times was one of the main points from a crime prevention point of view - although perhaps this really hasn't worked, as the police seem to be suggesting.
It just seems like a step back to the 1950s, and would be frankly pathetic compared to the situation in most other European countries. What sort of modern, forward looking country (TM basically every politician) doesn't trust it's citizens enough to let them buy a beer or two at 12.30 in the morning, if they want to?
Thursday 17 June 2010
BCS study of victimisation among 10-15 year olds
Fascinating stuff. The full Home Office report is here.
There are so many interesting points here is hard to know where to start. I think my favourite bit on first glance is the table which shows how the same incident might be interpreted in different ways depending on which criteria you want to use. Really brings home that while an action might be extremely rigidly defined as a crime in law (which is often not the case, but still), this does not make it necessarily so if you think about things in another way. Which of course people do, all the time. Perhaps this underlines the futility of the last government's attempts to make almost everything they didn't like illegal, as if this was going to wave a magic wand and make everything OK. Because a crime is a crime is a crime, right? Wrong.
On the other hand you have to have some sympathy with Alan Johnson's point at the bottom of the Guardian piece. Based on a realistic reading of the situation - and not that of the Graun's own lurid headline - talk of a crime epidemic among the under 16s appears to be greatly exaggerated. The 'victim perceived' risk of crime for 10-15 year olds is 6 per cent, while the 'norms-based' risk is 14 per cent, both substantially lower than the latest adult risk of 22 per cent. Even on the frankly bonkers 'all in law' basis 10-15 year olds are hardly more at risk from crime than those over that age (and probably substantially less at risk than those immediately older them, in the 16-21(ish) group).
As usual, it behoves us to say that all crime suffered by children is bad, but this report will hopefully bring a welcome bit of sanity to the debate.
There are so many interesting points here is hard to know where to start. I think my favourite bit on first glance is the table which shows how the same incident might be interpreted in different ways depending on which criteria you want to use. Really brings home that while an action might be extremely rigidly defined as a crime in law (which is often not the case, but still), this does not make it necessarily so if you think about things in another way. Which of course people do, all the time. Perhaps this underlines the futility of the last government's attempts to make almost everything they didn't like illegal, as if this was going to wave a magic wand and make everything OK. Because a crime is a crime is a crime, right? Wrong.
On the other hand you have to have some sympathy with Alan Johnson's point at the bottom of the Guardian piece. Based on a realistic reading of the situation - and not that of the Graun's own lurid headline - talk of a crime epidemic among the under 16s appears to be greatly exaggerated. The 'victim perceived' risk of crime for 10-15 year olds is 6 per cent, while the 'norms-based' risk is 14 per cent, both substantially lower than the latest adult risk of 22 per cent. Even on the frankly bonkers 'all in law' basis 10-15 year olds are hardly more at risk from crime than those over that age (and probably substantially less at risk than those immediately older them, in the 16-21(ish) group).
As usual, it behoves us to say that all crime suffered by children is bad, but this report will hopefully bring a welcome bit of sanity to the debate.
Birmingham stops camera surveillance in Muslim areas
Good.
Although you have to wonder what's the point of public consultation if it's true that:
officials insisted the £3m project would go ahead following a retrospective public consultation, arguing the cameras would help reduce crime.
That's the bit I really don't get - why is it alright for the 'ring of steel' to be there to stop ordinary crime but not terrorism?
So many questions it's hard to know where to start: are these particularly high crime areas? If so, why not a ring of steel round every such area - is this some kind of trial? If not, why these areas? Durrr, 'cos they're 'Muslim'? So it's because they're Muslim? And some Muslims are terrorists, so it's not about ordinary crime its about terrorism? No, because it can't be about terrorism, because that would undermine public confidence, we've only just realised. Whereas cameras to combat simply 'crime' are OK. So OK that we'll announce the result of the retrospective public consultation before it's even begun. Or should that be retrospectively consult with the public after the decision has already been made then completely ignore what we didn't want to find out in the first place?
Although you have to wonder what's the point of public consultation if it's true that:
officials insisted the £3m project would go ahead following a retrospective public consultation, arguing the cameras would help reduce crime.
That's the bit I really don't get - why is it alright for the 'ring of steel' to be there to stop ordinary crime but not terrorism?
So many questions it's hard to know where to start: are these particularly high crime areas? If so, why not a ring of steel round every such area - is this some kind of trial? If not, why these areas? Durrr, 'cos they're 'Muslim'? So it's because they're Muslim? And some Muslims are terrorists, so it's not about ordinary crime its about terrorism? No, because it can't be about terrorism, because that would undermine public confidence, we've only just realised. Whereas cameras to combat simply 'crime' are OK. So OK that we'll announce the result of the retrospective public consultation before it's even begun. Or should that be retrospectively consult with the public after the decision has already been made then completely ignore what we didn't want to find out in the first place?
Tuesday 15 June 2010
Spy cameras to ring 'muslim' area
Meant to write a quick something on this over the weekend. Quite aside the sheer affrontry of the idea - essentially placing a whole community under surveillance - it hasn't taken opponents long to see the fundamental flaw in this as in almost all such plans:
John Hemming, Birmingham Yardley's Liberal Democrat MP, said he could "only see negatives" in the scheme, which would collate data about thousands of law-abiding constituents, leaving criminals to evade police surveillance by "cloning their car or taking the bus".
You really have to wonder about who comes up with ideas such as this. Not only is it likely to be ineffective in its intended purpose - because, like, terrorists hide and play tricksy and all that - it seems so certain to alienate exactly the communities you need on-side in order to properly deal with domestic terror threats that it's almost as if this was the intended purpose. How do organisations such as the Safer Birmingham Partnership think people are going to react to having their every road movement tracked 'for their own safety'. A better example of how not to improve relations between local communities and the security services I think you'd be hard put to find.
One more worrying point - the councillors involve claim they were tricked into believing that the cameras were mainly there to deal with vehicle crime and ASB. So it's OK to track every vehicle movement into and out of an area if the aim is to deal with graffiti, kids drinking on the streets and the odd fight? Jesus wept.
John Hemming, Birmingham Yardley's Liberal Democrat MP, said he could "only see negatives" in the scheme, which would collate data about thousands of law-abiding constituents, leaving criminals to evade police surveillance by "cloning their car or taking the bus".
You really have to wonder about who comes up with ideas such as this. Not only is it likely to be ineffective in its intended purpose - because, like, terrorists hide and play tricksy and all that - it seems so certain to alienate exactly the communities you need on-side in order to properly deal with domestic terror threats that it's almost as if this was the intended purpose. How do organisations such as the Safer Birmingham Partnership think people are going to react to having their every road movement tracked 'for their own safety'. A better example of how not to improve relations between local communities and the security services I think you'd be hard put to find.
One more worrying point - the councillors involve claim they were tricked into believing that the cameras were mainly there to deal with vehicle crime and ASB. So it's OK to track every vehicle movement into and out of an area if the aim is to deal with graffiti, kids drinking on the streets and the odd fight? Jesus wept.
Friday 11 June 2010
Thursday 10 June 2010
Thousands of section 44 stops rules illegal
Hmmmmmm.
One issue is of course why they've been ruled illegal - not getting ministerial sign off within 48 hours seems pretty much a procedural oversight. But the number which lasted longer than the legal 28 day time period is truly concerning (and the blanket application in London frankly scandalous).
But I think the real issue of concern is what these 'oversights' and 'over zealous applications' mean in relation to how police managers see these quite sweeping powers. As a normal part of the job, perhaps? Something to be used more or less on demand? The number of searches conducted certainly implies a normalised procedure. That was not, presumably, the intention of the original legislation - although some might argue otherwise - and neatly illustrates the danger of introducing legislation to deal with 'unique' situations which go on to become a basic part of, in this case, police practice.
Thursday 3 June 2010
Slow posting
Just a quick note to apologise for the lack of recent posts - first illness and now a conference trip have intervened. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible..........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)