Police state or the state of policing

[Awol]

Finally, some truth about targets..

British policing 'has lost its way in target culture'

Policing has “lost its way” amid the “noise and clutter” of government targets, initiatives and new laws, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary has said.

Mr O'Connor spoke after he unveiled a critical HMIC report into protest policing, following the G20 demonstrations and said that forces have “drifted away” from the basics of front-line policing and serving the public.

He accused ministers, local authorities and police chiefs of “too many knee jerk reactions” to the problems of law and order.

“The principles of policing get drowned out in the noise,” he said. “You need to look at the number of units and departments at the Home Office, all the officials and the different committees and ask this question: do they think about the principles and values of the British model of policing?”

Centrally imposed targets have been criticised for distorting local police priorities, while red tape has diverted bobbies from the beat. Labour has created new crimes at a rate of nearly one a day since 1997. A separate report will say today that individual police officers solve an average of only nine offences a year.

Mr O’Connor spoke after he unveiled a critical report into the policing of protests, which followed the G20 demonstrations in April.

It disclosed that in public order law alone, there had been 61 amendments to legislation in the past six years.

“Police are uncertain of their duties and the powers they may exercise,” it stated.

Mr O’Connor called for a return to the ideals defined by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, of which the most important was “the police are the public and the public are the police”. He advocated an “approachable, impartial, accountable style of policing based on minimal force and anchored in public consent”.

“That was an ideal but there’s been some drift away from that. We have lost our way,” said Mr O’Connor.

The Home Office has recently introduced a single target for police of improving public confidence, after years of officers chasing designated crimes to hit multiple targets.

Mr O’Connor said that centrally-imposed targets were a “well intentioned” measure to tackle problems such as anti-social behaviour but had become a problem when “the machinery came to dominate what police officers did” and took away their discretion.

He added that police performance and accountability was still a “cluttered” landscape. “You have got government, you have got regulators like myself, you’ve got local partnerships, you’ve got government offices — a whole series of interests.

“If you add it all together and put on a piece of paper the links to show who is providing information, who is asking for information, who is suggesting new initiatives… it makes the London Underground map look like a walk in the park.

“There are just so many people, with so many different interests in play, it is very noisy. I think the whole thing needs rationalising significantly.”

The chief inspector said that he had been working with officials at the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to reform practices.

The Daily Telegraph has highlighted how, in an attempt to save time, a third of crimes are “screened out” by officers and never investigated.

Last month, Mr O’Connor disclosed how his inspectors discovered that more than four out of five police forces were failing to respond adequately to the public. Mr O’Connor said that the public also found it hard to hold police to account because of over-complicated crime statistics.

The report into public order policing followed criticism of officers’ heavy handed and “militaristic” approach at the G20 protests in April. The problem came from shortcomings in training, tactics, standards and leadership.

Mr O’Connor called on the Government to introduce a set of “overarching principles” to guide police on the use of force, informing officers about what constitutes appropriate behaviour in “all areas of policing business”.

He said that health and safety legislation, which meant officers had to assess the risk during their work, had made the police “too defensive”. They were quick to put on their riot kit at public order events – sometimes giving them a “military” look.

Mr O’Connor added that when police were making arrests or searching properties they should consider keeping the impact to a minimum in the neighbourhood by being “smooth, quiet, and relatively discreet”.

“I’m not sure people feel that’s always the case about the way some of those operations are done,” he said.

A study from the Institute of Public Police Research found that detections per officer fell from 10.2 offences for each officer in 2003-04 to 9.4 offences per officer last year.

[snowychap]

Names of innocent people will stay on police database

The names of nearly a million people who have not been convicted or cautioned for any crime will continue to be stored on the police national computer, even though the government is changing the law so that their DNA profiles are deleted.

The revelation has provoked outrage among human rights groups who warn that it could affect the job prospects of the innocent. They fear that whenever an employer carries out an "enhanced criminal records" check on a potential employee, the system would flag up the fact that the person had been arrested.

The government has been forced to scale back the way it holds the details of people held on the national DNA database, following a European Court ruling that retaining the profiles of people arrested but not charged with a crime or who were acquitted, was "disproportionate". As a result, government plans – outlined in the crime and security bill going through parliament – will limit how long the DNA profiles of such people can be kept. In most cases it will be up to six years.

But the Observer has established that the records of their arrest will be held by police for an indefinite period. The 2005 National DNA Database Annual Report says: "It has become necessary to retain a nominal record of every person arrested for a recordable offence on the Police National Computer… to help the police identify and locate an individual following a match being obtained on the [DNA database]." Prior to the expansion of the DNA database, details were deleted on acquittal or if charges were dropped after 42 days.

"Keeping permanent records of arrest is unprecedented in British history and is open to serious abuse," said Helen Wallace, director of the campaign group GeneWatch UK. "Failing to delete police records of people who are innocent means business as usual for the surveillance state."

The office of the information commissioner has warned: "All records held on the [police national computer] are readily accessible to any serving police officer acting in his or her official capacity and this access is frequently used to run a 'name check' on individuals who come into contact with the police. Given this level of access, the commissioner is concerned that the very existence of a police identity record created as a result of a DNA sample being taken on arrest could prejudice the interests of the individual to whom it relates by creating inaccurate assumptions about his or her criminal past."

Last month, a Metropolitan Police community support officer was charged with unlawfully accessing information held on police databases. Police in Wales have also launched a major investigation into similar allegations against a number of officers.

"The way in which permanent DNA retention leads to indefinite arrest records demonstrates the self-justification of the database state," said Isabella Sankey, policy director of campaign group Liberty. "Government has fed a culture where arrest might as well be conviction, and suspicion equals guilt. In this climate, a permanent record of suspicion can seriously damage the life chances of any young person who has ever had their collar felt by the police."

In April, there were 986,185 people with records on the DNA database who had no recorded conviction, caution, final warning or reprimand, suggesting around a million innocent people will continue to have the records of their arrest entered on the police system.

A spokesman for the Criminal Records Bureau said: "An arrest with no further action may show up as part of an enhanced check, but the decision is made by the chief officer in each police force if they believe that the information ought to be included and that it is relevant to the application."

[rjw63]

Save a bit of time for when they do commit a crime, eh?

:-)

[Gringo]

Whatever injustices the next one will carry out, the current govt is indefensible. They have no one to blame for their removal from power than themselves. But just like over the water with obama, the new broom will find reasons why they can't dispose of their new found toys/powers.

[snowychap]

But just like over the water with obama, the new broom will find reasons why they can't dispose of their new found toys/powers.

Indeedy. As someone has recently reminded me, it doesn't matter for whom one votes, the government always gets in.

[snowychap]

Stop and search powers illegal, European court rules.

Judges in Strasbourg say UK powers under Terrorism Act 2000 violate convention on human rights.

The European court of human rights today ruled that Britain's controversial stop and search powers were illegal, in a blow to the government's policy on combating the threat of terrorism.

The court ruled that powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion violated article eight of European convention on human rights.

The cased involved Kevin Gillan, 32, a student from Sheffield, and Pennie Quinton, 38 a freelance photojournalist from south London, who were held under the act in 2003.

They were stopped and searched while on their way to a demonstration at Europe's biggest arms fair at the ExCel centre Docklands.

Seven judges sitting in the Strasbourg court ruled that the pair's right to respect for a private and family life had been violated. The court awarded them €33,850 (£30,400) in compensation.

The judgment overturns a House of Lords ruling in 2006 when five Law Lords unanimously rejected Gillan and Quinton's appeal. It is expected to force the government to amend the legislation to ensure it complies with human rights convention.

The judgment challenges section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows the home secretary to authorise police to make random searches in certain circumstances. The act removed the previous requirements that the police had to have grounds for suspicion in order to conduct a search.

Instead officers only had to show it was "expedient" to do so. The lack of a stricter legal test and the absence of sufficient safeguards meant that this was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court said, adding that it was "struck" by how widely the powers had been used, with over 100,000 searches conducted. Between 2004 and 2008 the number of such searches increased from 33,177 to 111,278.

"In the court's view, the wide discretion conferred on the police under the 2000 act, both in terms of the authorisation of the power to stop and search and its application in practice, had not been curbed by adequate legal safeguards so as to offer the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference," the ruling says.

Corinna Ferguson, a legal officer for Liberty, welcomed the judgement. She said: "Liberty has consistently warned the government about the dangers of stop and search without suspicion and actively campaigned for the tightening up of the infamous section 44 power. The public, police and Court of Human Rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law. In the coming weeks, Parliamentarians must finally sort this mess."

The full judgment is available here.

[LondonLax]

The court awarded them €33,850 (£30,400) in compensation.

Wow! And I was down there with a camera just a week before last years arms fair myself. I guess I missed out on that gravy train

[snowychap]

Wow! And I was down there with a camera just a week before last years arms fair myself. I guess I missed out on that gravy train

From the judgement:

THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY...

4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants;

5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 33,850 (thirty-three thousand eight hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

( that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Hardly a 'gravy train', mate.

[LondonLax]

Ah well, if this was the US there would be a load of "mental hurt and anguish" thrown in...

[DanishVillan]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Benjamin Franklin

[Gringo]

Kent police admit unlawful stop and search of twins, 11

The stop and search of 11-year-old twins at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp was unlawful, Kent police have admitted at London's High Court.

The twins, referred to as E and T, were searched while at a demonstration against Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in August 2008.

Officers searched the twins on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion" they might be carrying prohibited articles.

The police admitted that officers at the scene had misapplied legislation.

Colouring books were among the items police removed in searches

Prison fear

The children were taken by their mother to the protest over plans for a new coal-fired power station.

The court heard T was left "crying and shaking" after a female officer said he had to be searched.

He feared he would "go to prison" because he had stickers in his bag, which other people had had confiscated.

Stickers, environmental badges, crayons, highlighter pens and a clown's wig were all confiscated by officers, according to the twins' mother.

Richard Perks, appearing for the chief constable of Kent Police, said the police accepted that the twins were unlawfully stopped and that officers on the ground had misapplied stop and search legislation.

To perform a search police must complete a form explaining the reason for it, but the court heard that officers had only written "Oasis Kent" and "D" on the slips relating to the twins' search.

[Jon]

The stop and search of 11-year-old twins at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp was unlawful, Kent police have admitted at London's High Court.

The twins, referred to as E and T ....

were they allowed to phone home though? :winkold:

[snowychap]

Yes, I know it is a previous story (of a year or more ago) but this is certainly carrying more flesh than the previous one:

CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the ­"routine" monitoring of antisocial motorists, ­protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.

The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.

Documents from the South Coast Partnership, a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan with BAE, have been obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

They reveal the partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the 2012 Olympics. They also indicate that police claims that the technology will be used for maritime surveillance fall well short of their intended use – which could span a range of police activity – and that officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year.

The Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates UK airspace, has been told by BAE and Kent police that civilian UAVs would "greatly extend" the government's surveillance capacity and "revolutionise policing". The CAA is currently reluctant to license UAVs in normal airspace because of the risk of collisions with other aircraft, but adequate "sense and avoid" systems for drones are only a few years away.

Five other police forces have signed up to the scheme, which is considered a pilot preceding the countrywide adoption of the technology for "surveillance, monitoring and evidence gathering". The partnership's stated mission is to introduce drones "into the routine work of the police, border authorities and other government agencies" across the UK.

Concerned about the slow pace of progress of licensing issues, Kent police's assistant chief constable, Allyn Thomas, wrote to the CAA last March arguing that military drones would be useful "in the policing of major events, whether they be protests or the ­Olympics". He said interest in their use in the UK had "developed after the terrorist attack in Mumbai".

Stressing that he was not seeking to interfere with the regulatory process, Thomas pointed out that there was "rather more urgency in the work since Mumbai and we have a clear deadline of the 2012 Olympics".

BAE drones are programmed to take off and land on their own, stay airborne for up to 15 hours and reach heights of 20,000ft, making them invisible from the ground.

Far more sophisticated than the remote-controlled rotor-blade robots that hover 50-metres above the ground – which police already use – BAE UAVs are programmed to undertake specific operations. They can, for example, deviate from a routine flightpath after encountering suspicious ­activity on the ground, or undertake numerous reconnaissance tasks simultaneously.

The surveillance data is fed back to control rooms via monitoring equipment such as high-definition cameras, radar devices and infrared sensors.

Previously, Kent police has said the drone scheme was intended for use over the English Channel to monitor shipping and detect immigrants crossing from France. However, the documents suggest the maritime focus was, at least in part, a public relations strategy designed to minimise civil liberty concerns.

"There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a 'good news' story to the public rather than more 'big brother'," a minute from the one of the earliest meetings, in July 2007, states.

Behind closed doors, the scope for UAVs has expanded significantly. Working with various policing organisations as well as the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Maritime and Fisheries Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency, BAE and Kent police have drawn up wider lists of potential uses.

One document lists "[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving" as future tasks for police drones, while another states the aircraft could be used for road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance.

Under a section entitled "Other routine tasks (Local Councils) – surveillance", another document states the drones could be used to combat "fly-posting, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, abnormal loads, waste management".

Senior officers have conceded there will be "large capital costs" involved in buying the drones, but argue this will be shared by various government agencies. They also say unmanned aircraft are no more intrusive than CCTV cameras and far cheaper to run than helicopters.

Partnership officials have said the UAVs could raise revenue from private companies. At one strategy meeting it was proposed the aircraft could undertake commercial work during spare time to offset some of the running costs.

There are two models of BAE drone under consideration, neither of which has been licensed to fly in non-segregated airspace by the CAA. The Herti (High Endurance Rapid Technology Insertion) is a five-metre long aircraft that the Ministry of Defence deployed in Afghanistan for tests in 2007 and 2009.

CAA officials are sceptical that any Herti-type drone manufacturer can develop the technology to make them airworthy for the UK before 2015 at the earliest. However the South Coast Partnership has set its sights on another BAE prototype drone, the GA22 airship, developed by Lindstrand Technologies which would be subject to different regulations. BAE and Kent police believe the 22-metre long airship could be certified for civilian use by 2012.

Military drones have been used extensively by the US to assist reconnaissance and airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But their use in war zones has been blamed for high civilian death tolls

[bickster]

Ah official secrets act type stuff ;-)

[blandy]

Bit of a "tone" to that Grauniad article - controversially deployed in Afghanistan....blamed for high civilian death tolls.... etc.

I'm not at all sure that the deployment of Herti to help detect IEDs etc is controversial. I am also not at all sure that the use of reconnaisance UAVs is blamed for high civilian death tolls. Predator attacks is a different matter, but I'm not sure the article is actually talking about flying remotely piloted, armed drones over the UK to look for insurgents and kill them at weddings.

UAVs such as the ones mentioned in the article would perhaps be essentially cheaper replacements for Police Helicopters - doing what is done now, perhaps more efficiently, or effectively, at a lower cost.

The two issues which come out of that article, or should do, are - do we think that surveillance from the air could ever be justified, at say the olympics, or a football match, or other potential target for disorder or terrorism, and if so is the use of Helicopters, light aircraft or UAVs therefore something that should be considered?

and secondly, the issue of whether it is safe to fly UAVs over populated areas - the CAA seem to think it isn't at the moment, which sort of puts an end to the issue for now, I would have thought.

For me the most important is the second one - are UAVs "safe" to fly about over my house. The issue of a helicopter or other aircraft being able to take pictures or video from the air seems a non- story.

[snowychap]

Unlicensed Merseyside Police drone grounded

Police on Merseyside have had to ground their new drone over concerns it was being used illegally without a licence.

Merseyside Police said they had been unaware they needed a licence to fly the remote control helicopter, which is fitted with CCTV.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said it needed to be consulted over any use of the drones, that can fly up to 400ft and reach speeds of 30mph.

The force's drone was used last week to catch a car thief in thick undergrowth.

All unmanned aircraft, not just ones that weigh 15lb (7kg) or more, now have to be licensed to conduct aerial surveillance work after the law changed at the start of the year.

They need CAA permission to fly within 164ft (50m) of people and within 492ft (150m) of buildings.

The CAA said any breach in regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2010, would be "treated seriously".

A Merseyside Police spokesman said: "Since the force has known of the change in regulations all Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) flights have been suspended and will remain so until the appropriate licence has been granted."

He added that the CAA had been invited to inspect the drone and see how they used it.

Thermal image

The air space regulator confirmed it was investigating the use of the drone by Merseyside Police and the force had stopped all drone operations.

A CAA spokesman said it had the powers to fine those who operated illegally, but said the investigation with the Merseyside force was only in its early stages.

...more on link

[snowychap]

From across the pond:

US school district spied on students through webcams, court told:

A school district in Pennsylvania spied on students through web cameras installed on laptops provided by the district, according to a class action lawsuit filed this week.

Lower Merion school district, in a well-heeled suburb of Philadelphia, provided 2,300 high-school students with Mac laptops last autumn in what its superintendent, Christopher McGinley, described as an effort to establish a "mobile, 21st-century learning environment".

The scheme was funded with $720,000 (£468,000) in state grants and other sources. The students were not allowed to install video games and other software, and were barred from "commercial, illegal, unethical and inappropriate" use.

The district retained remote control of the built-in webcams installed on the computers – and used them to capture images of the students, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court this week.

The ruse was revealed when Blake Robbins, a student at Harriton high school, was hauled into the assistant principal Lindy Matsko's office, shown a photograph taken on the laptop in his home and disciplined for "improper behaviour".

According to Robbins, Matsko said the school had retained the ability to activate the laptop webcams remotely, at any time. Backed by his parents, Robbins filed a lawsuit on behalf of all students provided with laptops by the school.

The suit claims a violation of the privacy and civil rights of the students and their families and accuses officials of violating electronic communications laws by spying on them through "indiscriminate use of an ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each laptop".

It claims that since the laptops were used by students and their friends and family at home, images of "compromising or embarrassing positions, including ... in various states of undress" have been captured. A school district spokesman, Douglas Young, did not return a call seeking comment, but told the Philadelphia Inquirer the district was investigating. "We're taking it very seriously," he said.

In a letter posted on the school district's website, McGinley said the district had installed on the laptops a security feature that allowed the webcam to photograph the computer operator in the event the laptop is lost or stolen. He said that following the suit's filing, the district disabled the feature amidst a review of technology and privacy policies. He said the feature was activated only to help locate a lost or stolen laptop.

"The district never activated the security feature for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever," he wrote. "We regret if this situation has caused any concern or inconvenience among our students and families."

[leviramsey]

That's what you get when you're in a cricket-playing area, I guess...

(though had I followed family tradition and gone to Haverford, I likely would have been on the cricket team...)

[snowychap]

Man held in police station for eight hours after taking pictures of Christmas celebrations in Accrington

Video included on link

Police questioned an amateur photographer under anti-terrorist legislation and later arrested him, claiming pictures he was taking in a Lancashire town were "suspicious" and constituted "antisocial behaviour".

Footage recorded on a video camera by Bob Patefield, a former paramedic, shows how police approached him and a fellow photography enthusiast in Accrington town centre. They were told they were being questioned under the Terrorism Act.

Senior police officers last year promised to scale back the use of anti-terrorist legislation such as Section 44 of the act, which deals with photographers, after a series of high-profile cases in which photographers said they had been harassed by police for taking innocuous images in the street.

Patefield and his friend declined to give their details, as they are entitled to under the act. The police then appeared to change tack, saying the way the men were taking images constituted "antisocial behaviour". Patefield, who is in his 40s, was stopped three times before finally being arrested.

He and his friend were taking photographs of Christmas festivities on 19 December, after attending a photography exhibition. The last images on his camera before he was stopped show a picture of a Santa Claus, people in fancy dress and a pipe band marching through the town.

He turned on his video camera the moment he was approached by a police community support officer (PCSO). In the footage, she said: "Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone's details who is taking pictures of the town."

Patefield declined to give his details and, after asking if he was free to go, walked away. However the PCSO and a police officer stopped the men in another part of the town. This time, the police officer repeatedly asked him to stop filming her and said his photography was "suspicious" and "possibly antisocial".

Patefield asked if the officer had any "reasonable, articulable suspicion" to justify him giving his details.

She replied: "I believe your behaviour was quite suspicious in the manner in which you were taking photographs in the town centre … I'm suspicious in why you were taking those pictures.

"I'm an officer of the law, and I'm requiring you, because I believe your behaviour to be of a suspicious nature, and of possibly antisocial [nature] … I can take your details just to ascertain that everything is OK."

Patefield and his friend maintained that they did not want to disclose their details. They were stopped a third and final time when returning to their car. This time the officer was accompanied by an acting sergeant. "Under law, fine, we can ask for your details – we've got no powers," he said. "However, due to the fact that we believe you were involved in antisocial behaviour, ie taking photographs … then we do have a power under [the Police Reform Act] to ask for your name and address, and for you to provide it. If you don't, then you may be arrested."

There is a section of that act that compels a member of the public to give their details if a police officer suspects them of antisocial activity.

The sergeant also alluded to complaints from the public and, turning to Patefield, added: "I'm led to believe you've got a bit of insight into the law. Do you work in the field?"

Patefield was arrested for refusing to give his details, while his friend, who gave in, walked free. Patefield was held for eight hours and released without charge.

In a statement, Lancashire police said they and members of the public were "concerned about the way in which [Patefield] was using his camera". It said police felt they had "no choice" but to arrest him because he was refusing to co-operate.

[kidlewis]

Jesus some of these stories make 24 Believable. Drones, arresting people for taking pictures of Santa Claus?

:S