'Child' Migrants

Child Migrants?

 

A piece from a former colleague on how many of the 'child' migrants from Calais came to be here.

 

I had an interesting conversation recently with someone from the Home Office regarding the dispersal of the migrant camp at Calais and the importation to Britain of hundreds of ‘child’ refugees.

Although never admitted, it is obvious that a deal was struck with the French regarding dispersal of the camp. Britain’s part of the deal was to take 800 to 1000 of, so called, children from the camp; children who allegedly had family in this country and were desperate to be reunited with them.

I am told that Home Office staff were asked to run details of hundreds of would be migrants against the Home Office criteria to enter the country as child refugees. Only handfuls of migrants met the criteria as genuine  child refugees. They were asked a number of times to reduce the criteria and run the numbers again and again until sufficient met the criteria to reach the figure obviously agreed as part of the deal with France.

Normally, once a person apparently meets the criteria to enter as refugees, the Home Office carry out various checks to try and verify the age of the young person. These checks may also highlight some of the risks that these migrants might pose with regard to criminal convictions or terrorist threats. On this occasion staff were told not to carry out such checks. They were not allowed to question these migrants about their age. The only process allowed was to take fingerprints and check to see if the migrant had been previously fingerprinted. If they had and the previous details differed then this could be questioned.

Once transported to Britain the migrants were spoken to further regarding their family in this country and obviously their future. One immigration officer, aged in their late thirties, said they were obviously speaking to a man who was older than them but they could not challenge their claim to be 17 years old.

Attempts were made to speak to the relatives they claimed to be coming to join. In many cases no trace of relatives supposedly already in this country could be found. In some cases phone numbers outside of the UK were given as contacts. In those cases where they did manage to speak to alleged relatives, those relatives were not interested in homing or supporting their long lost cousin, nephew, brother, Etc. Only a handful ended up with their families.

The vast majority were shipped to reception centres all over the country to be looked after at the tax payers’ expense. As children, they had to be found foster homes, schools, colleges Etc. Men in their 20’s and 30’s about whom we knew very little, in amongst real children. The importation of these, mainly young men, without carrying out proper checks is a risk to people in this country. A risk the Government appears to be happy to take with us.

Social Services have subsequently aged assessed many of these migrant ‘children’ to try and protect real children in this country and to stop wasting money placing the migrants in schools, foster homes Etc. The majority of them have been aged assessed as over 18. Despite having arrived in this country under a complete deception, none of them will be removed. We will simply encourage others to carry out the same deception in the future.

 

 





Did Rebekah Brooks Influence Appointment Of Met Commissioner?

Alleged attempt to interfere in appointment of London’s top policeman

• Sir Paul Stephenson stood down as Met Commissioner in July 2011, hours after Mrs Brooks’s arrest on phone hacking charges
• A senior News International figure – not Mrs Brooks or Neil Wallis – secretly told No 10 that Mrs Brooks did not want Sir Paul’s main rival, Sir Hugh Orde, to get the job
• News of the World exposed Sir Hugh Orde’s love child

Rebekah Brooks faced fresh controversy last night, 12 days after she was cleared of all charges in the phone hacking scandal.

The Mail on Sunday has learned of an alleged attempt to meddle in the appointment of Britain’s top policeman – who was later forced to resign over his links to the former News of the World and The Sun editor.

Sir Paul Stephenson stood down as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in July 2011, hours after Mrs Brooks’s arrest on phone hacking charges.

He admitted that he had employed former News of the World executive Neil Wallis as an aide and had enjoyed a free £12,000 stay at a health farm which employed Mr Wallis as a public relations adviser.

An investigation by this newspaper has established that when Sir Paul was appointed by then Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a senior News International figure – not Mrs Brooks or Mr Wallis – secretly told No 10 that Mrs Brooks did not want Sir Paul’s main rival, Sir Hugh Orde, to get the job.

Sir Hugh’s hopes of getting the role had been hit when the News of the World revealed he had an illegitimate child from an affair with an undercover policewoman.

They are the latest developments in a long-running controversy over Mrs Brooks’s relationship with the police, including the loan to her of a Metropolitan Police horse, Raisa, which was also ridden by her friend and Oxfordshire neighbour, Prime Minister David Cameron.

Mrs Brooks and her husband, the racehorse trainer Charlie Brooks, were cleared of all charges in the phone hacking trial, which ended nearly two weeks ago.

No charges were ever laid against Mr Wallis.

The new disclosures date back to the battle to succeed Sir Ian Blair as head of London’s police in 2009, which came down to a contest between Sir Hugh and Sir Paul.

The Mail on Sunday has been told that shortly before Sir Paul was appointed, a News International representative contacted No 10 and said Mrs Brooks was opposed to Sir Hugh getting the post.

‘The message was very clear. She did not want Hugh Orde to be the Met Commissioner, and she wanted that message conveyed to the PM,’ said a well-placed source.

Sir Paul got the job after he was backed by then Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, London Mayor Boris Johnson, and Mr Brown. There is no suggestion that his appointment was influenced by the News International approach.

Sir Hugh had long been tipped as a future Commissioner after winning praise for his role in the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, improving police relations with ethnic minorities and his record as head of the Northern Ireland police force.

But his hopes suffered a major setback in 2007 when the News of the World revealed that he had an illegitimate child.

The story appeared two weeks after Andy Coulson, jailed last week for phone hacking, stepped down as editor following a previous phone hacking scandal. Mrs Brooks was News of the World editor until 2003 when she became editor of The Sun. She was chief executive of News International, which owned both papers, from June 2009 to 2011.

Mr Wallis was News of the World deputy editor from 2003 to 2007 and executive editor from 2007 to 2009.

In his resignation statement, Sir Paul said that he had known Mr Wallis since 2006 and that the Metropolitan Police hired him as an adviser from 2009 to 2010.

The News of the World story in 2007 which revealed the extra marital affair involving Sir Hugh, then head of Ulster’s police force, said: ‘Loverat top cop Hugh Orde last night pleaded guilty to… adultery. His three-year affair with a pretty Detective Constable led to the birth of a secret son.’

It said a ‘pal’ of the lovers had revealed details of the affair and added: ‘What the news of his existence will do for Sir Hugh’s career is anyone’s guess.

‘The fact he’s got a secret son tucked away in the Home Counties does not look good on the CV.’

In September 2007, the News of the World was also first to report the affair had led to the end of his marriage.

It said: ‘Sir Hugh, tipped to be the next Met Police boss, broke up with wife Kathleen months after she found out about his affair.’

A source close to Sir Hugh said: ‘It is staggering that anyone from News International might attempt to influence the appointment of the country’s most senior policeman. Sir Hugh is fiercely independent and would have run the Met in that manner.’

Mr Brown could not be contacted. Sir Paul and Mrs Brooks declined to comment. A source close to her denied that she urged Mr Brown to block Sir Hugh.

Theresa May and That Speech

I am publishing below an article written by former DS Chris Hobbs. There are a few holes in his case but much of what he says is spot on! My sources tell me that the Federation response to this will not only be to take on board the Normington reforms. You should see an application to the European Court for the right to take industrial action. You cannot treat the police like any other organisation and then withhold those rights. The service can only take so much of your strap-on Mrs May!

Chris Hobbs

Can somebody please tell me what was so ‘brave’ and ‘courageous’ about Theresa May’s speech last week at the Police Federation conference?

What was the worst that could have happened to the ‘fearless’ Home Secretary? Booing, heckling, slow hand clapping all of which should be meat and drink to any politician be they a local councillor, MP or cabinet minister.
She was in no danger of being shot at, spat at, punched, kicked, stabbed, petrol bombed or of being terrified that the mob she was facing would literally kill her if they were given the chance.
Many of those in the audience would have faced some or all of the ordeals listed above yet had to sit and listen to a politician clearly on a mission to enhance her potential as a possible future leader of her party.
She would know only too well the results of a recent survey carried out by the University of the West of England which shows police morale to be on the floor with nearly 50% of officers stating that they would move jobs if the opportunity presented itself. She would know that police staff surveys amongst virtually every force in the UK shows widespread disillusionment that should send alarm bells ringing throughout the Home Office.
Yet despite that, like a cowardly street corner thug, she ‘stuck the boot in’ to a world renowned police service which is already on its knees.
Of course there were the usual insincere platitudes uttered as is always the case when either politicians or the sections of the media launch an onslaught on rank and file police officers. Seasoned, opportunist politician that she is, she would know that it would not be the platitudes which would grab the headlines but the scathing criticism that could only damage shattered police morale still further whilst bringing cheers from those on the right who have joined with the left in berating the beleaguered police at every opportunity.
No-one would deny, least of all rank and file officers, that the Police Federation has become a self seeking shambles. Police officers pay the monthly subscriptions purely because the nature of their work requires them to be able to obtain legal cover. Yet even obtaining this is a lottery with applications for help frequently being denied despite the millions festering away in federation coffers.
The rank and file were disgusted by the sheer lack of resistance by those at the top of the Police Federation to policing reforms which have worsened pay and conditions and made their job far more difficult on the streets. Just one protest march was organised and rank and file officers watched stunned as their representatives supinely acquiesced to reforms that would have been unthinkable years ago.
It wasn’t as if the Police Federation were short of ammunition. Met police whistle blower James Patrick’s book, ‘The Rest is Silence’ forensically dissected the dubious machinations around police reform to reveal dubious practises involving conflicts of interest bordering on corruption. Sadly James’s careful research became lost in the crime figures furore that surrounded the book and his appalling treatment as a police whistle blower.
In fairness to the Police Federation, the report by Sir David Normington which provided Theresa May with so much ammunition, was actually commissioned by the Police Federation itself and perhaps had she simply stayed with her criticism of the Federation, she might have escaped the wrath of front line police officers throughout the country.
That however would not have grabbed the headlines in quite the same way as her self-promoting, spiteful condemnation of the entire police service which included her listing every alleged transgression that has occupied the headlines over recent months.
Incredibly she even included incidents which are still the subject of ongoing judicial proceedings and investigations where conclusions still have to be reached.
From Hillsborough to Plebgate, Theresa May did not miss a trick in turning the knife in the already gaping police wounds yet, of course this ignores the fact that of the 132,000 serving officers and indeed a similar number of retired officers, only a tiny fraction of those not even numbering three figures, would be involved in the ‘transgressions’ mentioned almost jubilantly by the Home Secretary.
She accuses the police or more specifically Special Branch’s undercover SDS (Special Demonstration Squad) of ‘smearing’ the Lawrence family when the only evidence appears to some from one former disgruntled undercover officer. Of course, in the aftermath of Stephen’s death, the police had to ensure that the tragedy was not exploited by violent extremist groups and to the Lawrence family’s everlasting credit they rebuffed all advances from groups that espoused violence.
The police also had to ensure that the Doreen and Neville Lawrence remained safe from possible attacks by right wing groups such as Combat 18 which necessitated some knowledge of the family’s personal affairs, which unfortunately would have included the Lawrence’s marital split. This was later used to smear the police yet I was in Special Branch during this period and can clearly recall the overwhelming sympathy for the Lawrence family and the determination to keep them safe.
Theresa May’s mention of appalling behaviour by officers in one domestic violence case of course failed to mention the hundreds of acts of kindness and compassion shown by officers dealing with all sorts of incidents including domestic violence, across the country on a daily basis.
Thrown into this diatribe of contempt almost inevitably was stop and search. Previously Theresa May used the term “absolutely disgraceful” when referring to the issue yet neither she, the Inspectorate of Constabulary or other critics seem to have considered the fact that front line police in inner city areas have an aversion to dealing with young people who had their whole lives in front of them, lying dead or dying having been shot or stabbed.
Officers attending murders involving shootings and stabbings are not immune either to the trauma or emotion that accompanies these incidents and whether the victim is a gang member or not that victim is someone’s son or daughter and police have also to deal with the distraught family.
All too often young people have died because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or been wrongly identified. Kwame Ofuso-Asare, aged 17, Shaquille Smith 14, Agnes Sina-Inakoju 16, Joseph Burke-Monerville 19, Shereka Marsh 15 and Alim Uddin 17 are just some of the innocents who would be alive today if police had stopped and searched the perpetrator carrying that weapon through the streets before they reached their victim and who will forget little Thusha Kamaleswaren who was shot and paralysed in a gang shooting whilst playing in her uncle’s shop.
It also goes without saying that had the thugs who killed Stephen been stopped and searched by police he too would still be alive today.
These deaths are a tragedy too for those who carry out such heinous acts and who are almost inevitably arrested and sentenced for murder thanks to the expertise of officers so quick to be criticised by the Home Secretary; lives ruined by a murder conviction as opposed to one for possession of a weapon.
How duplicitous is it of Theresa May when she refers, in sections of her speech, to the ‘fall in crime’ to then, amongst the list of police transgressions speaks of; ‘Allegations of rigged crime statistics.’  It is of course these ‘rigged’ figures together with the hopelessly flawed England and Wales crime survey which provide her with the those very same ‘improved’ crime statistics of which she so frequently boasts.
Of course, one tactic by any politician whose country, party or department is in some difficulty is to a create a firestorm as a distraction and this particular policing firestorm is keeping attention away from the shambolic Home Office as it continues to blunder from one crisis to another under Theresa May’s leadership. Of course Mrs May’s political aspirations will remain unaffected as long as they remain out of the public eye or can be blamed on ‘something or someone else.’
Last week I attended the funeral of a truly exceptional customs officer who died tragically at the age of 46. He had become a living legend in his short life as, over the years, he and his team seized millions of pounds worth of Class A drugs at Heathrow.
Hundreds of his colleagues turned up to pay their respects in what was an emotional but nevertheless uplifting afternoon. Once proudly known as Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise the officers who worked on detection teams at UK ports have been passed around like an unwanted parcel, first being absorbed into the UK Border Agency and then, due to the pre-Olympic shambles of huge queues at airports, combined with Immigration into the UK Border Force thus terminating their proud history at the stroke of a pen.
After the Olympics the shambles quietly continued and after the funeral I spoke to numerous former customs officers who were now part of the border force and who are known patronisingly as ‘legacy customs officers.’
I listened to the same tale of woe time after time told by dedicated officers who I hadn’t seen for some years. I was astonished to find that since customs officers had been ‘absorbed’ into a more ‘efficient and effective’ unit the seizure of Class A drugs has dropped by a staggering 76%.
Officers complained that the priority was still queues and they were frequently taken away from detection duties to ‘stamp passports.’ Even when they were stamping passports, they were frequently unable to further question passengers they might be unhappy with due to ‘queues.’ Thus individuals are still entering the country in droves despite those individuals being of concern to border officers.
Many of these same officers have complained to their supervisors who, as former immigration officers, have little or no experience in drug detection and were less than keen to ‘create waves.’ According to these experienced officers, drugs seizures are no longer a priority and this view is supported by adverse comment by the Immigration Inspector, John Vine as to the lack of detection officers in the channels.
Amazingly many high risk flights are simply not covered at all and couriers are able to pass through the customs channels without even seeing a ‘legacy customs officer’ whose role is to detect passengers importing drugs. Little wonder that Britain’s drinking water is contaminated with cocaine.
After making their views known to their supervisors the complaining officers have no-where else to go. They are only too well aware that ‘whistle blowing’ will only result in them suffering the same victimisation as their police colleagues with the likelihood that they would lose their jobs.
This disgraceful situation is taking place on Theresa May’s watch; little wonder that receiving plaudits from her colleagues at ‘taking on the police’ is preferable to an exposure of her appalling failure in dealing with problems at the UK borders.
The standing joke however, is that if the true situation in relation to drugs importation were exposed then her spin would simply be that the fact that fewer drugs were being detected at the borders was as a result of ‘effective controls.’
So we have a situation where Theresa May is presiding over a totally demoralised police force, a totally demoralised Border Force and, a result, is being ‘touted’ as a future Prime Minister.
Storm clouds are however on the horizon. The commander of the Met’s elite firearms CO19 unit has publicly stated that 60% of his officers may hand in their firearms authorisations if the Home Office backed IPCC proposals as to procedures after shootings come into force.
What he didn’t say was that all CO19 officers are likely to refuse to carry firearms in any event if any firearms officer is prosecuted for the deaths of Azelle Rodney and/or Mark Duggan. This would result in the biggest policing crisis since the police strike of 1919.
It may of course be that Theresa May’s decision to mount such a ferocious attack on the Police Federation which is clearly designed emasculate it, may just have something to do with the recent decision taken by European Committee of Social Rights. This gives the Irish equivalent of the Police Federation the right to strike and clearly Theresa May would wish to ensure that there is no possibility of any UK police federation going down that same controversial road.
Over the last few years the federation hierarchy has incurred the wrath of its members by prevaricating on the issue of a ballot whereby officers would decide if they wished to legally pursue their right to strike. For that, Theresa May and her predecessors should be grateful.
One fact is certain; during the last few months many front line officers are making it clear to close relatives that if they are killed ‘in the line of duty’ they do not want ‘that woman’ anywhere near their funeral.
 

Plebgate - The Unpalatable Truth

I have come out of retirement briefly to put down some thoughts about Plebgate. I wrote about this earlier this year and I hate to say it, but I told you so.
The facts are very simple. Andrew Mitchell left Downing Street on the 19th September 2012 and had a hissy fit because a police officer wouldn't let him through the main gate. Mitchell admits being bad tempered and swearing; the only argument is whether or not he used the word pleb. It is an unusual word to use, one that seems unlikely for the police to make up?
Son of an MP, educated at Rugby Public School and Cambridge, and an arrogant member of the ruling classes; who would believe that Mitchell would say such a thing as 'Best you learn your fucking place. You don't run this fucking government ... You're fucking plebs?' If Michael Portillo is to be believed Mitchell has used the pleb word in private before.
An idiot police officer took it upon himself to write to his MP claiming to have witnessed the incident didn't help the situation and simply gave ammunition to Mitchell, his supporters and the anti police brigade.
A bit like Chris Huhne, Mitchell came out fighting for his career and produced video footage from the area, which he claimed proved that the police were lying. The anti police brigade and media were completely suckered. Anything discrediting the police was accepted without question. It was good work by Mitchell's team. People are still posting today that the video evidence proved the police were lying. You can view the video evidence and a detailed critique here.
A year long investigation has concluded that there is no evidence to support any theory of a conspiracy by the police against Mitchell. The CPS, rather weakly, say that there is insufficient evidence to show that the police officer was lying. There is no evidence other than Mr Mitchell's denial. The CPS also say they took into account evidence including “the fact that Mr Mitchells account has varied since the incident”
The biggest issue for me is the biased and edited video footage that was given to Chanel 4. The programme makers have made it clear that they did not edit the footage given to them. The CPS report says that the programme “showed edited footage that was less than clear in a number of regards”. It goes on to say that the unedited video evidence shows that the police officers account could be correct.
So who produced the footage given to Chanel 4, which appears to have been edited to discredit the police and support Mitchell's case? Why aren't the media asking this question?
I see today that Mitchell's case of libel against The Sun is not going well. He submitted his evidence late and has been told that because of this, even if he wins the case, he will have to pay his costs. He has had a year to get his story straight now. Why was it late? Don't be surprised if you see that case dropped before too long. He may say he cannot afford to fund it now he has to pay his costs. I say he won't want to appear in the witness box and face some difficult questions.
No one has come out of this sorry affair without blemish, but when it comes down to it, who do I believe? PC Plod doing his job on the gate or an arrogant, foul mouthed toff who thinks he was born to rule us?

The Rape Debate

You may have missed the recent case in the press regarding rape allegations. A woman made an allegation of rape on the basis that she consented to sex but told the man involved that he mustn't ejaculate inside her. He told her would if he wanted to and did just that. Prosecutors decided that they could not charge him as the man's action could have been spontaneous and the decision beyond the point of no return, so to speak. The woman challenged the prosecutors decision in the High Court and the learned judges have decided that breaking conditions placed on intercourse can amount to rape. They have ordered the prosecution to review its decision.

Rape allegations already cause significant debate and not inconsiderable hysteria. The usual, and sensible, argument of innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem apply to rape allegations. All men accused of rape are guilty and must be convicted, according to some. Some feminists and pressure groups are campaigning for the law to be changed; to reduce the burden of proof in rape cases; to upturn the law so that the defendant must prove that consent was given.

When most people think of rape they think of a woman walking alone down a street and an attacker forcing them into an alleyway or something similar. The truth is that the vast majority of rape allegations involve someone known to the victim. It may be a family member or friend. It is often a man met in a pub or club. The most common scenario is one where a woman meets a man and, after a few drinks, agrees to go somewhere with him and sexual intercourse takes place. The critical point to prove will be, was consent given? It can be very difficult to prove that consent was not given.

I saw another interesting article yesterday. After six months in post as HMIC, Tom Winsor has decided that, in these times of austerity, the police should focus their energies on crime prevention rather than catching offenders. Most of us who have been in the job for a while understand that crime prevention was always the first of Robert Peels nine principles of policing.

Crime prevention is good. I think though that Peel's vision of prevention was having a visible policing presence looking for potential crime and criminals. It was also catching offenders and a justice system that imposed negative consequences. In the case of prolific offenders or serious crime it probably also included incarcerating them, thereby protecting society from their offending. I wrote an article about our ineffective justice system. How the police have withdrawn from the streets. How victims are blamed for offences against them. How the justice system fails to punish offenders and in fact rewards them. I won't go on about it again. You can read it here if you wish.

Mr Winsor's advice simply confirms everything that I said in my article. We can no longer afford to protect the public. All we can do is tell them to get a house alarm, window locks, 5 lever dead locks on the doors. Don't leave valuables on display in, and lock, your cars. Don't walk around in public using expensive phones, iPods, laptops Etc. If you ignore this advice then it is your fault for being so stupid when your property is stolen or you are assaulted.

None of this crime prevention advice will apply to rape victims however. If we dared to tell women what to wear. If we dared to suggest they don't get drunk. If we dare tell them not to get in a taxi with someone they have just met, we will be met by abuse and rage from some quarters. Suggesting that women behave in a particular way to protect themselves is an abuse of their right of freedom to express themselves and men have just got to learn to respect that. If only these freedoms applied to all crimes.

For the record I believe that if any man rapes a woman; whether they are drunk or not; whatever they are wearing and however stupid they may have been; he deserves to have his appendage removed or whatever prison sentence comes to him. I don't believe that woman need to appear in public with nothing more than their eyes showing to enable men to keep control of themselves. But I have seen too many hungover young men arrested and put through the mill because a woman was unsure as to whether or not she had consented to sex the night before.

If we are now saying that women can be raped if men breach conditions of sex then it is even more important that the usual safeguards and protections in place for defendants are kept in place. Reducing the burden of proof or bringing about proof of consent by defendants will bring about injustices just as perverse as guilty rapists going free.

 

Federation RIP

Police Federation of England and Wales

The Chair of the PFEW, Steve Williams, has recently published a report on the Federation website following a meeting he had with the Prime Minister. Mr Williams describes this meeting as constructive. How he can write anything positive about it I do not understand. The Prime Ministers comments sound the death knell for the Federation. Does Mr Williams even understand this you wonder?

Mr Williams raised concerns about compulsory severance. He gave a rather weak and watery reason as to why it shouldn't be introduced. Did he raise the issue that the police have no industrial rights? Did he mention that the Scottish Justice Secretary has clearly stated that the police should be compensated for not having industrial rights?

The poorly organised and flawed ballot on industrial rights held by the Federation in February has given the green light for the Government to introduce compulsory severance and implement any other changes they wish to. This follows on from the beating they have already given the Federation by ignoring almost all their representations regarding the Winsor reforms and cutting police officers pay and pensions. The decision to hold the ballot before the Governments decision on compulsory severance; the lack of support in the top echelons of the Federation for the ballot and the decision that the ballot would be of no effect unless 50% of the electorate voted in favour were crass and short sited.

The Prime Minister then told Mr Williams that Federation Representatives must retain skills in front line policing. The Federation have a significant number of full time representatives. There are 30 national representatives based at the PFEW HQ in Leatherhead. Every Force has at least two local full time representatives. Most have three or more. That is a total of more than 150 full time representatives. These representatives have allowed the Federation to get heavily involved in national issues and represent their members locally in management negotiations and misconduct matters, for example.

Following a campaign in the media, Francis Maude made an announcement last year regarding full time union activists in the civil service. He has stated that they will spend no more than 50% of their time on union activities and they will not get paid time off to attend national events such as Conference. You can read a bit more here if you wish. This has been on the horizon for over a year but the PFEW only appears to have now woken up to the fact that these changes will affect them too.
Implementation of these proposals in the Federation will effectively leave them in a position where they are irrelevant. That appears to be the Governments plan. Officers are already leaving the Federation in significant numbers. When they find no one has time to represent them with regard to complaints or management decisions then they will leave in their droves. The Federation will lose much of its funding and implode into insignificance.

Finally, the Prime Minister told Mr Williams that his officers must behave themselves and be respectful to Government representatives at Conference. If they don't then the Government will no longer come to the party.

The Government have made it pretty clear that they are going to continue walking all over the Federation. The Federation have played almost all their cards by staging the failed ballot in February and unless they come up with an alternative strategy very quickly, the Federation may have to just take it. One avenue that may yet be open to the Federation is Europe. European police forces have the right to take industrial action and it may be that a case can be put to Europe that there is no justification for UK police forces having those rights withheld. This will take years though. I am not sure the Federation will be around to see it implemented. Assuming we are still in Europe, of course!

 

Federation In Meltdown

Steve Williams - Chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales

 

 

I spotted this article in The Independent regarding current issues within the Police Federation. I don't normally read that rag; the only thing it is independent of are any views from anyone who isn't a Socialist.

 

I am not sure that the current divisions in the Police Federation concern more power going to the centre. The issues in the Federation centre around The Met, The Constables and the Principal Officers of the Joint Central Committee.The Met accounts for almost a quarter of the membership of the Federation. Constables make up more than 70% of the membership.
 

For decades there has been talk of The Met and Constables declaring UDI and going independent of the National Federation. These tensions invariably increase when the National Federation has been perceived to fail to represent their members effectively. Tensions further increase when senior positions in the National  Federation are not occupied by Metropolitan Officers or Constables.

 

Ian Rennie - General Secretary of the Police Federation of England and Wales

 

 

Paul McKeever was a Metropolitan Police Sergeant and, until his untimely death at the beginning of this year was, in my opinion, one of the finest Chairs of the National Federation we have seen. Paul was very much focused on diplomacy, influence and negotiation. Paul did his best to clamp down on Force Federation officials becoming too vocal over the Plebgate affair, but was ignored by some and this caused significant damage. Paul understood that Plebgate might result in a Government led review of the Federation and he was the architect of the current review. He believed that the Federation submitting to an independent review would obviate any possible Government led review.

 

Following Paul’s resignation, and shortly before his death, Steve Williams, an Inspector from North Wales was elected as the new Chair. His arrival coincided with the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announcing the Governments decisions on the Winsor review. There was no good news for the Federation. Negotiations were seen to have been totally ineffective and Winsor’s recommendations were almost all accepted, resulting in huge losses to police pay and conditions. In a clever move though, May deferred any decision on compulsory severance until July.

 

Under pressure from local Forces the National Federation had been instructed at Conference to hold a ballot  on industrial rights. This was seen as a means of letting the Government know that officers had had enough. The National Federation did not want the ballot and dragged their heels over it. The ballot was eventually arranged for February.

Many people, myself included, believed that the ballot should have been postponed until after the decision on compulsory severance was made. Police officers have always been regarded as servants of The Crown and normal employment law does not apply to them. With the already accepted changes to rights overturned by Winsor, compulsory severance would mean the police being treated almost no differently to any other employee. In that case they should have the same industrial rights.

The ballot went ahead in February. It was poorly organised and advertised. The Fed hierarchy added a self imposed twist. They said the ballot would have no effect unless more than 50% of the electorate voted in favour of industrial rights. The ballot was an inevitable failure. Only 42% of officers voted although 81% of those that did, voted for industrial rights.

The ballot was an own goal for the Federation and gives the Government the green light to impose compulsory severance and any other changes they might wish to. All the new Chair of the Federation, Steve Williams, could say was "it would not be appropriate to undertake a course of action that could potentially change the employment status of more than 133,000 police officers if fewer than half of those officers have voted for us to do so." He seems to have missed the point that the special employment status has already gone.

Will Riches - Chair of the Constables Central Committee

 

We now have a belligerent, Met Chair of the Constables Committee, Will Riches, combined with frustrations regarding the apparent ineffectiveness of non Met and non Constable rank Principal Officers leading the Federation. The Plebgate review is seen by the militants as further capitulation to the Government who have already run roughshod all over the police.

One thing is for certain. Federation blood is going to be spilt over the carpets at the swanky HQ in Leatherhead, Surrey. Whether that blood is the Chair, Steve Williams, Secretary, Ian Rennie or the aforementioned Will Riches we will have to wait and see.

The main point though is that the Federation need to resolve their squabbles and get their act together and start representing their members. They have failed to achieve almost anything for members in the wake of Winsor and officers are beginning to leave the Federation in their droves. They can no longer afford the membership fees and have seen little return for their investment. If the Federation don't start representing members effectively, and soon, they will find they represent no-one.

Death of Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher died this morning. As she did with everything, she did it in style, taking her last breath whilst staying at The Ritz.

Much will be said about the life of Margaret Thatcher over the next few weeks. She will be castigated for many things. I didn't agree with everything that she did. It must be remembered that when she took power in 1979 the country was on its knees. She is blamed for destroying industry in this country but the unions had already achieved most of that. Remember British Leyland. We had had the three day week, power cuts and the country being held to ransom. Rubbish was on the streets for weeks. When she left office at the end of 1990 the country was unrecognisable from what it had been 11 years earlier.

Love her or hate her she was one hell of a leader and admired and feared throughout the world. Unlike many of her successors her integrity was unblemished and without question. We will be lucky to see the like of her again.

Gadget Lives On - The iPhone Resolution

Inspector Gadget

 

We may have seen the demise of one Gadget but, for the police, gadgets are still being used to great effect in the fight against crime. Millions of pounds have been spent on new technologies that were supposed to support the police in their operations. Tackling organised crime can be very expensive involving mobile and static surveillance, listening devices, tracking devices. Etc. But in the case of tracking down offenders there is a much simpler method, which is freely available, and sometimes more effective than the latest secret technology.

The iPhone resolution started about 3 months ago when a clever DS from a Metropolitan Force was working on a case of online fraud. The hard work had been done preparing the case and they were ready to arrest the suspect but had no idea where he was. They did however have his mobile phone number.

The DS had been using an App to keep tabs on his teenage sons whereabouts. He decided to try and use this to locate the suspect. He simply asked the fraudster for his location via SMS using a free App. To everyone's surprise, the fraudster fell for it. Within seconds, the application revealed his location. The suspect was in the city and in custody within two hours.

The great thing about using Apps is that they do not need a warrant or RIPA and they can save hundreds of hours of officer’s time. A number of forces have now used them to trace wanted suspects and offenders and the trend is growing fast. Some Apps need to be pre-installed on phones and forces download them onto offender’s phones when they are arrested and in custody. If they subsequently fail to appear or are wanted for another offence they can easily be located. Suspects cannot remove the Apps, which are hidden anyway, without a pass code. The great thing about the App the DS used is that nothing needs to be installed on the suspects phone. It will work if you know the number and they respond to the SMS.

The Apps offer other possibilities too. They may assist tracking down missing people or identifying where drug dealers are operating, for example.

To assist with arresting wanted suspects some police officers are being issued with iPhones with pre installed Apps, including the one used by the DS, which is the Where Are You App plus Google Maps, a Pocket Flash Light, a Police Radio Scanner, a Traffic Alert App, a UK Police Reference, and last but not least for those long stakeouts: A free version of Angry Birds Space.

 

Gadget lives on after all!

 

Priorities

Another DM style post I am afraid, but I couldn't resist this one.

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to The Treasury

 

 

In an interview with The Telegraph today, Danny Alexander has made it clear that the Welfare budget has been ring fenced and will not be considered for any more cuts in public spending. Consequently, defence and policing are highly likely to have to face even more cuts to their budgets.

 

This is a hugely disappointing decision by the coalition. The welfare, or social protection budget, is by far the largest and arguably the one that can be cut without having any effect on services at all. These charts show where your money is taken from and where the Government spend it.

 

 

 

 



The welfare budget has grown to such an extent that every household in the UK is contributing £8000 per annum towards it. If one in five households are net receivers of benefits then working households actually contribute £10,000.

 

The cuts to policing have already resulted in the loss of more than 16,000 jobs. The number of officers on response has fallen to levels that put officers and the public at risk. Proactive policing is almost extinct. The chances of the police detecting your crime has never been lower. Crime will inevitably rise. The chances of the police being able to tackle the next retail riot are diminishing all the time.

 

But apparently, keeping some benefit claimants in cigarettes and drink is more important. 



 

 

Is This Really What the Police Should be Doing?

Surrey Police Officer's and Staff

Someone in Surrey sent me the above picture and the related article from their monthly force magazine. You may have missed the fact the 1st February was World Hijab Day, but Surrey Police took the opportunity to 'celebrate diversity,' 'respect differences,' 'understand the elements of conducting stop and search' and join in wearing a hijab for the day.

It is easy to be a cynical old dinosaur and criticise events such as this. If the focus had been on policing issues such as searching someone wearing a hijab I could understand, but I am assured that front line officers have had no such input.

Personally, I have always seen the hijab as a sign of the oppression and subjugation of women by men. I have seen women on the television insisting that they wear the hijab through personal choice. I have always felt that being indoctrinated from birth to wear it and to do what you are told hardly amounts to free choice.

I thought perhaps it was time to educate myself on the matter and so I went to the World Hijab Day website to try and find out more. The link takes you to two videos that I have watched. The second one features women wearing the hijab who state they wear it for a number of reasons including 'I want people to judge me by myself, not how I look.' 'It is my choice to wear it.' and 'I wear it because I respect God.'

I then went to the first video and listened to an Imam giving a talk entitled 'Beautiful Lecture for Sisters about Hijab.' I found this quite alarming considering this is, presumably, a moderate Imam who is being put forward as a voice of reason. You have to wonder what others may be saying. He says that to show shape, flesh or hair is a sin. 'Guard your beauty if it is honour that you seek because the people around you are like wolves on the prowl.' Does this mean that it is feared that women showing any shape, flesh or hair will drive men into an uncontrollable frenzy?

The Imam then relates a story about a Muslim man who went to the USA to study. He had to do some group work with a western woman. He was embarrassed and would not talk to her. The women lost her temper with him and stood up and accused him of degrading and oppressing women. He responded that Muslims treat their women with respect. Every woman is a sister, mother, daughter, aunt. Etc. Muslims will go to any lengths to defend their women and their honour. He then went on to say  'Your women are like a joint, a drug. They get passed from man to man. Everyone takes an inhalation until they have had their fill and then it gets passed to the next until everyone is finished. And then they throw it on the ground because it has no more purpose, it is worthless and it gets stepped on.' The western student was so impressed by what she heard that the following week she came to college covered from head to toe.

I have some sympathy with those who criticise the moral values of western society. I am constantly disappointed that equality in this country sometimes means women lowering themselves to the behaviour of the most drunken, debase and debauched men. But is the hijab really the sort of equality we aspire to?

The purpose of this post is not to cause offence to any religious group. I respect your right to believe what you want and wear what you want. In return I expect to be allowed to express my own views freely. What I really am questioning is, what business is it of the police to get involved in this way? By taking part in World Hijab Day do we support the Imams views, clearly available on their website? They seem to contradict other policies. What differences are we celebrating? By all means teach police officers enough about culture and religion so they can carry out their job but it need go no further than that. I would argue that to do so is hypocritical and damaging to the police.

Incidentally,  as per my other recent post 'Is This the End of Free Speech' my views would not be allowed in the police or public sector and would almost certainly result in dismissal.

Betrayal of Trust?

The following article has been submitted by a serving colleague. It reflects the disillusion and rock bottom morale within the police service and the frustration with representatives who are seen to have failed to act to support members or to prevent the end of the service as we know it.

 

 

The Police Federation of England and Wales - Representing Members or Self Interested Fat Cats?

Following recent high profile events like Plebgate, the national industrial rights ballot and the abject failure of the Police Federation to effectively counter Winsor's review, there's a strong argument that the Police Federation of England and Wales is no longer fit for purpose. That's a view reflected by a growing number of angry, disillusioned and frustrated officers nationwide. It's something the PFEW are waking up to themselves - their recently announced 'root and branch' review recognises the fact. But, it could be that this inward soul searching will be seen by the membership as being too little, too late - especially as this much vaunted review is anticipated to take a year to unfold and longer to implement if the hierarchy deem that any change is necessary. On the front line, officers are asking how it is that the organisation responsible for representing them has become so detached from its members. The answer lies in the Federation's national structure, which is a throw back to before the dark ages. By way of highlighting its broken structure, it's well known that the Constables, who comprise around 70% of the membership, suffer a disproportionately minuscule number of votes in any decision making processes undertaken at national level. Neither fair, representative, nor democratic.... It's also an open secret that a handful of centrally located people hold the vast majority of the power, none of them having been elected by the rank and file. They receive generous allowances and 'pension-related honoraria payments' that leave their members with the perception that although everyone is equal, some are more equal than others. The perception from those on the front line is that it must be really difficult to fight for your members when you are not affected by what is happening to them.... But what grates most for members is being ignored, or worse, being treated like children and this is an ongoing issue. When questions are asked, they routinely go unanswered, and the recent ballot is a case in point. Even whilst the ballot was live, it wasn't widely known that a 50% + 1 voting threshold had been arbitrarily imposed, and the reasons behind that decision remain a mystery to this day. It's hard to think of any organisation, trade union, or other public or private body that imposes such restrictions on a supposedly democratic process. Looking at the voting stats throws up more questions than answers. It looks like more than 50% of officers nationwide registered to vote. That means officers took the time to engage with the process and found a computer to log on to. So, if more than 50% registered, why didn't they all vote? There were HUGE variances in some regions between those who registered and then those who eventually voted. We know FOR A FACT that there were technical issues early on - did this stop the process being effective? We may never know. We do know officers have come forward saying that, having registered, they never received their voting email, despite repeated contact with the electioneers. Given that, prior to the ballot, Federation officials were adamant that everyone who wanted to vote would get the opportunity, their silence now on this issue is baffling. Where is the transparency, scrutiny and accountability? Several recent national examples show our ballot up for the farce that it was. National elections recently secured jobs for Police Crime Commissioners who gathered as little as 8% of the popular vote.  The civil service union has just announced that its members are to take strike action based on a ballot that only secured votes from 28% of its members.   So just why is it that we were required to achieve a 50.1% turnout? For the same reason, many suspect, that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Obtaining industrial rights would bring with it the opportunity to join a trade union and that would sound the death knell for the Police Federation. It's hard for the national leadership to counter such cynicism, especially when they seem incapable of communicating with their members even at the most basic level. It took them a year to organise a ballot because they said it 'needed to be credible'. Criticism of the ballot has been as vociferous as it has been widespread, but the most damning verdict was delivered by the Met Fed, who openly described the ballot as 'bizarre', stating they were 'appalled'' at the National Fed's stance. Such criticism is unprecedented and some predict is the opening salvo of a civil war that could tear the organisation apart.   Records show that the PFEW is sitting on a cash pile of over £20m, but there is scant evidence of this being used to launch an effective campaign to fight the harsh realities of Winsor. Their financial records are a matter of public record and they certainly bear closer examination. How many officers know that in 2011, £1.4m of their money was spent on furnishings? What percentage of officers realise certain fed officials receive honoraria payments and 'elected officer enhancements' to their salaries - bonuses that start at £15K per annum? So how can all of this be justified if you are on the wrong end of a complaint and the fed decide they won't pay to legally represent you because you don't have more than a 50% chance of winning in their opinion? How do such bonuses sit with front line officers having their pay cut in April, with more financial misery to follow? Officers feel that they are effectively being held hostage because there is no alternative to the Police Federation. To access associated benefits officers HAVE TO pay voluntary subs. They then, at additional cost, get access to health care, insurances and other benefits. 99% of officers join the Fed when they sign up for service. The benefits are competitively priced thanks largely to the Fed's bulk buying power and the fact that when they join most officers are comparatively fit and healthy. To pull out of paying voluntary subs, for example with twenty years service, means members lose access to all the benefits that they have signed up to. Without the financial support of the Federation, the fear of a malicious complaint putting an officer in court at their own expense is tangible, especially when coupled with the loss of health and life cover, which it is virtually impossible to source competitively elsewhere if you are in your forties of fifties. The fact that despite these pitfalls officers ARE withdrawing their subs should be ringing alarm bells at national HQ. Many believe that if there was ANY competition the Federation would be abandoned by its members and bankrupted virtually overnight. It's a sad indictment that many now see the Federation as a necessary evil, rather than their guardian angel. Officers are left with what is effectively a two tier representative body. At local level fed reps represent officers, influence management and help those who are doing an impossible job. The work of these reps is often heroic and goes largely uncredited, but the bigger picture has them, and those who rely on them, hamstrung by in-fighting and petty politics, the likes of which means that, at national level, communication is chaotic and the message mixed. On the one hand we're told individual branch boards won't share their details with each other, which means the National Federation don't know who their members are, yet at the same time officers are being 'mail shot' at home as the Fed desperately attempts to entice officers to take up various offers designed to plug the financial gap created by those leaving. The most current example of this confusion is the constables branch website (www.policeconstables.org). Just to officially launch it and have a link to it off the main National Federation website proved an onerous task. It was heralded as the voice of the rank and file. A chance for the majority to have their say and to be kept informed and up to date with all matters Fed related. Officers were encouraged to register so the Fed would finally know who their members were and so that they could share questions and ideas on the forums found there. Typically, things started well, but soon descended into farce. Though over 8,000 PCs have registered, the site has yet to trail blaze to any degree. Months and months of questions being posed and left largely unanswered by Fed officials has left the site looking like a post-apocalyptic ghost town. The few posters left (there are a hard core of about ten) are treated with contempt, chastised and threatened with bans. The site is plagued with technical difficulties and its news section is so out of date as to make it a contradiction in terms. The largest ongoing joke is the insistence of Fed officials from within the site that they have 'a plan'. It must be a corker of Baldrick-like cunning because it has been 'a work in progress' for nearly two years and is yet to show itself. The site is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the Police Federation, all wrapped up in one sad, semi-abandoned bundle. This April's pay packet will bring with it the double-whammy of a pension contribution increase and the reduction in CRTP. It will be a defining moment for officers and the PFEW. Until now officers have largely only lost the opportunity to receive something that was becoming due...we've missed out on future pay rises, or the next stage of an increment rise that was on the cards. From April, for the first time, we will start to see our hard earned money being deducted at source from our pay packets. Nationally, it isn't something PFEW have prepared officers for. It will come as a shock to many and will affect us all. There will be welfare and financial issues that will need addressing - officers should be in no doubt that this is the start of actual hardship for many. How ironic that at their time of greatest need, officers will be considering withdrawing from the Federation to try and claw back some of the cash that the Federation has allowed the government to snatch from their members. As a Post Script, it seems PFEW are not beyond being petty either. Having recently withdrawn my subs, I have been denied access to the Constable's website forums, despite the fact that even having withdrawn my voluntary subs I remain a member of the PFEW whilst I continue as a serving police officer. If that doesn't guarantee me access, then the fact that I have paid subs up to my next pay packet does. It's a small thing, but it's also indicative of an organisation perceived by some as rotten to its core. Needless to say, emails surrounding this issue have gone unanswered. There is little doubt that within the next six months events of seismic proportions will overtake the Police Federation. With voluntary redundancy ratified and live, compulsory severance on the horizon, fitness testing, reductions in pay for restricted officers, the possible introduction of A20 and a new comprehensive spending review imminent, it's beyond time for the national PFEW to clean house, draw a line and start again. Officers need their help and have done for some time. Sad indeed that whilst I remain proud of being a police officer I am ashamed and embarrassed of the organisation that is supposed to represent and protect us all.

 

The End of Free Speech?

Reverend Brian Ross

You may have read the story that a police chaplain, Reverend Brian Ross, has had to leave his post. He made comments on his blog stating that he was against gay marriage. This is why police bloggers are anonymous. In the politically correct infested world of the police and public sector, having opinions that contradict the Orwellian equality policies means state persecution and dismissal.

Regular readers will know how I hate our current state of Liberalism. This notion that is is bringing about more freedoms and less state control is ludicrous. Liberalism has brought about a society where no one has any responsibility for themselves. Self control and accountability has almost disappeared resulting in erosion of freedoms . Most concerning though is the erosion of freedom of speech.

We now have three political parties who are almost indiscernible. Nu Labour moved the Labour party firmly to the centre, waving goodbye to the loony left. Blair and Brown spent us into massive debts to try and buy votes from their grass roots. Truth is the Labour elite actually hate their supporters as we found when Brown was caught labelling Gillian Duffy as a bigot. Cameron has jumped on the same bandwagon. He believes that to become electable he has to move the Conservative Party to the centre and he despises the traditional Conservative vote. The problem for Cameron is that the intolerant centrists hate him. He is despised as a privately educated toff and will never be accepted by the liberal classes.

This takes me back to the story of Reverend Brian Ross. Our liberal society has become so intolerant that anyone whose views differ from theirs are abused and treated as sub human. Pink News actually did a very balanced story regarding Reverend Ross. But if you look at the comments it is a different matter. 'Good riddance.' 'Bigot.' 'Bollocks.'

I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't believe the Government has the right to change the Oxford English Dictionary definition. I have no religious shackles and I believe that the churches opinions on the matter are largely unhelpful. I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman with the ambition of producing children. I don't have a problem with gays or gay relationships. I support civil partnerships. I am of the view that as gay relationships cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party then they are different and cannot be a marriage. I don't care if gay couples relationships are blessed in church or anywhere else. I don't care what their relationship is called but it is not a marriage. There are good reasons why that difference should be maintained.

Some people will say that my views make me a homophobic bigot. I am genuinely bewildered by this. The sad thing is that if I publicly stated those views as a serving police officer I would likely be sacked.

This is a very dangerous path. To me it seems no different to Nazi Germany. We all know the old story where they came for the Communists and the Jews first, and everyone else did nothing because they were neither of these things. Then there was nobody left to protest.

Liberalism, rather than creating a country of understanding and respect has created a country of blandness and intolerance. Characters with opinions outside of liberal tolerances are eradicated from the public sector and vilified elsewhere. The police are questioning people for opinions that allegedly cause others alarm or distress. People have been prosecuted for their 'non conformist' opinions. The situation is getting worse all the time. How long will it be before people are sent to re-education camps, imprisoned, tortured or executed for their non liberal views?