Police state or the state of policing

[drat01]

Lets face it, the party you support are anti civil liberties, anti democracy, basically the worst government this country has had in living memory.

Disagree - and it would seem that the party you support has the same ideas over this as proven in London and Richmond in particular

I suggest you read Matthew Parris in the Times today

That would be Matthew Parris who supports which party?

Resorting a whole load of swearing also adds nothing

PS. I bet you're well proud of Jacqui Smith, the only Villa fan I'dlike to see shot in the face, sleazy clearing in the woods that she is.

Obviously violence is an answer for some ..........

[drat01]

How does this work with your previous comment that this is all a mad conspiracy theory?

Gringo - I answered that in the post to you

The legislation allows mandatory legislation across all license holders. Stasi is right.

The Heil as you state are merely pointing out that the right wing labour govt are implementing right wing policies that even they would object to.

The Heil will be happy if they ever read VT

Ah well off to the pub now - I will comb my hair because you never know who's watching

[Awol]

Obviously violence is an answer for some ..........

Like Mr T " warmonger, shite PM, lying bastard extraordinaire" Blair you mean? Or maybe Mr " It's all Amerika's fault, I didn't **** up the entire economy, honest guv" Brown?

Trying to pull me up for use of the F word doesn't really make you morally superior either. Face it, Labour are lying, warmongering clueless scum, currently wreckers in chief of everything we in Britain used to stand for. You're proud of that, it says more about you than your favourite newsapaper, although it's funny that when the Guardian slag Labour's assault on civil liberities you are strangely absent from the debate.....

Who extended drinking hours again leading to an increase in drink related crime? They'd sell their own mothers for the chance of more tax. Hope you're proud of these 'socially progressive' fucktards.

[Gringo]

How does this work with your previous comment that this is all a mad conspiracy theory?

Gringo - I answered that in the post to you

It's a all consiparacy theory in one voice

But in the other you support all the slow incremental intrusions into public life.

When the govt are pushing a law through to allow sharing of data [that no govt dept wants] and on the other hand are increasing their survelillance of people.

The Heil will be happy if they ever read VT

As said above, your views are far way right than the views of the daily mail.

It's hard to bite, but labour are the most authoritarian govt seen in the UK in the past 100 years. Strange game when the right are defending the people's liberties.

[snowychap]

Under a code of conduct, which will be enforced by the Bill, any business that intends to sell alcohol will have to agree to install the cameras.

The code of conduct being referred to is, I think, the Social Responsibility Standards for the Production and Sale of Alcoholic Drinks in the UK code.

Apologies - got this wrong.

After having a check back on the second reading debate and the oral evidence given to the committee stage on the bill by a junior minister, the mandatory code has not yet been devised.

Neither has a draft code been devised. There are still consultations and discussions, apparently.

So the newspaper report on the content of the code is not, as yet, correct.

However, the bill requires a mandatory code to apply to all premises (not to target premises where there has been trouble).

The minister has said that the draft code will be available for examination by the committee but they only have two more days of the committee stage (Tuesday and Thursday next week).

The actual code, though, will not be part of the bill and this is what the Mail ought to have been picking up on (like Gringo did earlier) as the bill gives the secretary of state the power to introduce the mandatory code by SI.

So, more primary legislation being used to enact powers to bring forward the actual detail by secondary legislation.

Great.

[snowychap]

^ The amount of people in the know that keep warning of a police state in the UK keeps on growing but enforcing more and more state control seems to be hard wired into Labour's DNA.

Read in the paper this morning that under the new counter terror laws you can arrested for photographing a policeman, that's another potential check on their behaviour removed. But we are just paranoid conspiracy theorists Gringo...

The Metropolitan Police Federation's take on this:

Do not make us the 'secret' police

The Metropolitan Police Federation shares the concerns of press and other professional photographers that poorly-drafted anti-terrorist legislation could be used to justify unwarranted interference in their lawful activities.

And we echo MP Austin Mitchell's call, made last year in an Early Day Motion, for the introduction of a photography code, which we believe should be clear and easily understood by any photographer, police officer, civilian support officer or warden.

The code should be drawn up jointly by the Home Office and the various professional bodies representing police and photographers.

Its aim should be to facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it.

We understand that professional photographers have immediate concerns over the implementation today (February 16) of section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.

This updates section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which states that a person commits an offence if "he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism…" adding: " 'record' includes a photographic or electronic record".

Section 76 expands on this, turning into a criminal anyone who "publishes or communicates" any information about a member of the armed forces or a police officer which is "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism…"

This is open to wide interpretation or, rather, misinterpretation.

How, for example, will it be expected to apply in practice to the 2012 Olympics, which will be both a photo-event par excellence and subject to an intense security operation?

Does the law mean tourists are going to be rounded up and arrested en masse for taking suspicious photos of iconic scenes around the capital? That will work wonders for the international reputation of the London Bobby and for the city as a whole as a welcoming destination.

If there is a terrorist attack in the capital, will the media concentrate their efforts on fire and ambulance crews and prudently avoid broadcasting or publishing pictures of police officers, rendering them invisible to the public?

Police and photographers share the streets and the Met Federation earnestly wants to see them doing so harmoniously. Good relationships between the police and media benefit everyone, including the public, which both sides exist to serve.

As things stand, there is a real risk of photographers being hampered in carrying out their legitimate work and of police officers facing opprobrium for carrying out what they genuinely, if mistakenly, believe are duties imposed on them by the law.

This is unfair on everyone and completely avoidable - hence, the Met Fed's call for joint action to produce a mutually-agreed code.

We do not want to become the ‘secret’ police.

[snowychap]

Tories may 'ground' troublemakers

Young troublemakers could be confined to their homes, outside school hours, for a month under plans being unveiled by the Conservatives.

In his first major speech as shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling said those who break curfews "should expect to find themselves in the cells".

Police would apply for a court order to "ground" youths for up to a month.

He also said police should be able to take youngsters caught misbehaving to stations and call their parents.

The speech to the Local Government Association was his first major speech since becoming shadow home secretary in January's Tory reshuffle.

Persistent troublemakers

He said tough action was needed to stamp out anti-social behaviour and said 10-year-olds caught causing trouble should be "sent home to bed".

Should the Conservatives win power at the next general election, he said: "I will instruct our police to remove young troublemakers from our streets altogether, not just move them on to disrupt a different street."

Those caught doing "something stupid" should be able to be taken back to police stations and their parents called to come to pick them up.

"We're exploring the best way of making this possible but it's got to be the right thing in some cases," he said.

"I think our police need the power to ground a young persistent troublemaker - in the hope that we can stop them from getting so far into trouble that they end up in the criminal justice system."

"Our police should have powers to go straight to a magistrate and get an order against that troublemaker confining them to their homes for up to a month - except for during school hours. And if they break that curfew order they should expect to find themselves in the cells."

...more on link

Doesn't sound the most well thought-out policy to me (and really it's just an ASBO).

If people were 'sent to bed' every time they did 'something stupid' then I'd hazard a guess that some of our politicians would never take of their pyjamas.

[Richard]

Doesn't sound the most well thought-out policy to me (and really it's just an ASBO).

I'd agree that some more thought and detail needs to be put to this.

On the wider debate in terms of legislation to "aid" the police, is nothig more than a cynical attempt by the govt to buy votes from a section of society

[Gringo]

On the wider debate in terms of legislation to "aid" the police, is nothig more than a cynical attempt by the govt to buy votes from a section of society

A centre-right party using the law and order angle to convince the electorate they are tough on crime is nothing new (david waddington shiver).

[Clarry]

I don't think I've been in one pub in London recently without CCTV.

[snowychap]

On the wider debate in terms of legislation to "aid" the police, is nothig more than a cynical attempt by the govt to buy votes from a section of society

I'm not sure it's always that cynical (though often it is ) from either party, Richard, but I do think that we (as a country and maybe as a world) seem to rely on badly thought-out legislation far too much.

It often seems that when there is a problem, we give the authorities a big stick. When that problem gets worse, we give them a bigger stick. Rinse, magnify and repeat.

We ought, however, to be thinking about what stick is appropriate in the first place (and indeed if a stick is the right solution).

It is, to me, slightly bizarre that when politicians talk about a desire to keep kids (and others) out of the criminal justice system, they back that up with policies which criminalise behaviour which otherwise would not be covered by the criminal justice system.

When even police federations are worried about the standard of legislation which they are supposed to enforce and the effect that this sub-standard legislation has upon the necessary bond of trust in a society with consensus policing, I think it is about time that we looked at the manner in which government (all governments) seeks to deal with problems.

[blandy]

Another right winger speaks out. independent newspaper

Someone called Blunkett.

David Blunkett, who introduced the idea of identity cards when Home Secretary, will issue a stark warning to the Government tomorrow that it is in danger of abusing its power by taking Britain towards a “Big Brother” state.

At the 21st annual law lecture in Essex University’s Colchester campus, Mr Blunkett will urge ministers to rethink policy and counter criticism from civil liberties campaigners that Labour is creating a “surveillance society.”

He will come out against the Government’s controversial plan to set up a database holding details of telephone calls and emails and its proposal to allow public bodies to share personal data with each other.

His surprise intervention will be welcomed by campaign groups, who regard him as a hardliner because of his strong backing for a national ID card scheme and tough anti-terror laws. The former home secretary will propose a U-turn on ID cards for British citizens....Instead, holding a passport would become compulsory for all British people, who could choose to “opt in” to the ID card scheme if they wished.

Mr Blunkett will insist Labour has got the balance between liberty and security broadly right. But he will argue that it has unwittingly given ammunition to its critics by allowing legislation to be used for wider purposes than originally intended.

For example, the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, intended to bring in proper rules and oversight, resulted in the “absurdity” of council officials using it to tackle dog fouling and monitor household waste.

Mr Blunkett will urge the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, to water down provisions in the Coroners and Justice Bill on data sharing between public bodies. He will warn: “It is not simply whether the intentions are benign, undoubtedly they are, but whether they are likely to be misused and above all what value their use may have.”

He “remains to be convinced” about plans of the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, for a giant central database to store records of phone calls, text messages and the websites people access.

Mr Blunkett will argue that people’s rights are already being breached – not by the Government but by “private enterprise surveillance and intrusion, coupled with data theft, fraud and information and data insecurity”. He will call for the Information Commissioner to be given greater powers in these areas.

He insists that Britain is not yet a surveillance state but will warn ministers: “The strength of our democracy is that we are able to challenge when the well-meaning, but sometimes misguided, take their own knowledge of the threats we face to be justification for protecting our mutual interest at the expense of our individual freedom. If we tolerate the intolerable, the intolerable gradually becomes the norm.”

[Clarry]

I don't think I've been in one pub in London recently without CCTV.

In fact, I should add, one of the CCTVs in/on my local is aimed at my front door. Somthing to do with the old lady that used to live there and help out in the pub.

[snowychap]

This could have gone in the economy thread but I feel it is just as much at home here:

Give us laws that the City will respect and fear

Mug some one in the street and you go to prison, but mug their savings and you can buy a yacht. It's a disgrace to justice

Our system for regulating markets and for prosecuting market crime is completely broken. If you mug someone in the street and you are caught, the chances are that you will go to prison. In recent years mugging someone out of their savings or their pension would probably earn you a yacht.

How did we get here? Well, financial deregulation undoubtedly released great energy and wealth into the markets and did so in part by giving bankers and financiers more space. But this space had another effect. It created a growing distance between wealthy and powerful individuals and the agencies designed to police their behaviour.

Not sensing the danger in this, our two main political parties supported looser regulation over many years. Now, apparently tainted by past misjudgments, they are deeply compromised in trying to find solutions. Yet put simply the scale of failure is laid bare by one inevitable consequence clear for all to see: too many people and too many institutions function as though they are beyond the reach of the criminal law.

In Britain we had an additional burden: legislators who preferred criminal justice to be an auction of fake toughness, so long as the toughness was not too tough to design. So no one likes terrorists? Let's bring in lots of terror laws, the tougher the better. Let's lock up nasty people longer, and for longer before they are charged. Let's stop medieval clerics winding up the tabloids. Let's stop off-colour comedians outraging homophobic preachers. Let's pretend that outlawing offensiveness makes the world less offensive.

This frequently made useful headlines. But it didn't make our country or any other country a better or safer place to live. It didn't respect our way of life. It brought us the War on Terror and it didn't make it any easier for us to progress into the future with comfort and security.

Our legislators faltered because they seemed to ignore the fact that what makes good politics doesn't always make good policy. And they didn't want to tackle the more complex issues that really affect safety in people's lives. It was easier to throw increasingly illiberal sound bites at a shadowy and fearsome enemy.

In Britain, no one has any confidence that fraud in the banks will be prosecuted as crime. But it is absolutely critical to public confidence that it should be. If there was fraud in RBS or in any of the other failed banking institutions, if there was fraudulent misselling or corruption or any other criminal activity, it needs to be uncovered and dealt with. The alternative is the worst possible lesson for our national life.

Do people believe this will happen? No, they don't - and that is a damning and corrosive conclusion, encouraging deep cynicism towards our national institutions. For all the fashionable talk of rebalancing criminal justice in favour of victims, for all the talk of community engagement and targeting offenders, this is the acid test.

Forget the paranoiac paraphernalia of national databases, identity cards and all the other liberty-sapping addictions of the Home Office. Forget the rhetoric and do something useful. If the Government really wants to protect people beyond armoured-vest posturing, here is the opportunity.

We need a new financial regulatory and law enforcement authority that inspires respect and, when it's needed, fear. Financiers will say that this would inhibit entrepreneurship. But regulation and law enforcement exist for a reason beyond the fear that they might inspire, and they are not inconsistent with free markets.

On the contrary, as an important aspect of the rule of law, they support enterprise. They exist to create an environment in which people can make decisions, go about their lives and do business confident in the knowledge that what they legally hold will not be stolen from them. This is the basis of all law and it is shockingly absent from our financial markets.

So we need a single powerful authority to take the place of the failed Financial Services Authority and the embattled Serious Fraud Office. Independent and strong, it should have responsibility for both regulation and prosecution. It should take an informed, expert view of what activity to regulate - and what to prosecute through the criminal courts. And when it prosecutes it must do the job properly. It needs a reputation that says regulation must be respected and that, with the right evidence and scrupulously fair trials, prosecution means long years in prison. It is an absolute failure of public policy that we have no means of reassuring the public that this is at present the case for finance crime.

And that's where legislators come back in. How seriously do they really take financial wrongdoing?

Do they understand the wreckage it brings? How much money will they put into uncovering it? How long do they think the sentences should be?

Do they really believe that an illiterate mother-of-five drug mule from a village in The Gambia should be serving five times the sentence of a millionaire City fraudster?

Let's have fewer terrorism acts, fewer laws attacking our right to speak frankly and freely. Let's stop filling our prisons with junkies, inadequates and the mentally damaged. How apposite in 2009 to have, instead, a few more laws to confront the clever people who have done their best to steal our economy.

Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, is a member of Matrix Chambers and was Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-08

[Clarry]

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\

Nothing will happen. Unfortunately. Ever.

[snowychap]

Ministers to review councils' use of anti-terrorism surveillance powers

• Reports of councils' abuse of power prompts move

• Snooper's charter charge denied by home secretary

The government tried yesterday to quell rising concern over the abuse of powers designed to fight terrorism and serious crime, which some councils were using to target people who put their bins out on the wrong day.

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, announced a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which the government says is designed to stop the powers being used for "trivial" purposes.

Ministers proposed that senior officials, such as council leaders, should be able to authorise the use of the powers and said the review would look at which public bodies could use them.

Smith said the powers were vital to keeping the public safe not just from serious crime, but also from rogue traders and fly-tippers.

But a procession of stories of abuse has raised concern. A family in Poole, Dorset, were tracked covertly for nearly three weeks because the council wrongly doubted their claim that they lived in a school's catchment area.

Four councils, Derby, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool, have admitted using the surveillance powers granted under Ripa to investigate dog fouling. Smith said: "The government has absolutely no interest in spying on law-abiding people going about their everyday lives ... I also want to make sure that there is proper oversight of the use of these powers which is why I am considering creating a role for elected councillors in overseeing the way in which local authorities use Ripa techniques."

Last month it emerged the surveillance powers had been used by 182 district and unitary councils 10,288 times since 2004, but fewer than one in 10 inquiries led to a successful prosecution, caution, or fixed penalty notice.

The alleged offences included dog fouling, littering, illegal street trading, taxi overcharging and taking the fairy lights from a Christmas tree.

The Liberal Democrats, who obtained the details under freedom of information legislation, said Ripa was becoming a "snooper's charter".

Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said the powers should require authorisation by a magistrate: "For too long, powers we were told would be used to fight terrorism and organised crime have been used to spy on people's kids, pets and bins. Without reform, Ripa will continue to be a snooper's charter."

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "The government has allowed Ripa to become a snooper's charter. It was supposed to be there to tackle terrorism and serious crime.

"Instead it's being used by both the government and hundreds of local authorities to pry into all kinds of different parts of people's lives. It has to stop."

And beeb article:

Councils in England and Wales face new restrictions on the use of surveillance powers for minor offences such as dog fouling and littering.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) allows public authorities to intercept phone and e-mail data and use CCTV to spy on suspected criminals.

But Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has launched a review after fears it was being used for "trivial" offences.

The Tories and Lib Dems say RIPA has become a "snooper's charter".

But the government has resisted opposition calls for the use of the powers to be authorised by magistrates, arguing that the decision to use them should be left with councils and police.

RIPA was introduced in 2000 to allow police and security services to fight crime and terrorism more effectively and was later extended to allow local authorities to use some covert techniques.

In one case, benefit investigators covertly filmed Paul Appleby, a disability allowance cheat from Nottinghamshire, who had claimed £22,000 in payments.

He was in fact a member of an athletics club - and secret filming of him competing in events was crucial to the case against him.

But one example cited by the Home Office as wrong is an investigation into parents using a false address to get their child into a preferred school.

Ministers said that an official should have simply knocked on the door of the home in question rather than mounting round-the-clock surveillance.

Similarly, councils should stake out spots where dog fouling occurs and not follow suspect owners wherever they go.

The Home Office has now launched a consultation on exactly which public authorities will be able to use the powers in the future.

Ms Smith said the government had to protect people's freedom "from interference by those who would do us harm".

She said: "In order to do this, we must ensure that the police and other public authorities have the powers they need.

"But we must also ensure that those powers are not used inappropriately or excessively.

"I don't want to see these powers being used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day or for dog fouling offences.

"I also want to make sure that there is proper oversight of the use of these powers which is why I am considering creating a role for elected councillors in overseeing the way in which local authorities use Ripa techniques."

This could include making councillors the local watchdog for covert operations carried out against residents.

The government is also considering raising the rank of local authority employee allowed to authorise surveillance to senior executives. At the moment relatively minor council officials can give the go-ahead to surveillance operations.

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the powers had been used well in the vast majority of cases.

But he added: "We have become concerned about some offences that have come to light where these powers have been used to tackle what we would regard as trivial issues.

"Some examples would be individual cases of dog fouling, some cases of littering. Clearly, the purposes for which the act was introduced was not for local authorities to use it in that way."

The Conservatives say they would restrict the use of Ripa powers by local authorities only to crimes which could lead to a prison sentence and its use should be authorised by council leaders only.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "The government has allowed Ripa to become a snoopers' charter.

"It was supposed to be there to tackle terrorism and serious crime. Instead it's being used by both the government and hundreds of local authorities to pry into all kinds of different parts of people's lives. It has to stop."

The Lib Dems are calling on the government to ensure that Ripa powers are only used where strictly necessary and that their use is sanctioned by magistrates.

And Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "Without reform, Ripa will continue to be a snoopers' charter. Surveillance powers should only be used to investigate serious crimes and must require a magistrate's warrant."

The Local Government Association said its advice to councils was that it was inappropriate to use the powers for less serious matters except in the most unusual and extreme circumstances.

[snowychap]

CCTV schemes in city and town centres have little effect on crime, says report

Criminologists' research shows surveillance cameras are 'at their most effective' in cutting vehicle crime in car parks

The use of closed-circuit television in city and town centres and public housing estates does not have a significant effect on crime, according to Home Office-funded research to be distributed to all police forces in England and Wales this summer.

The review of 44 research studies on CCTV schemes by the Campbell Collaboration found that they do have a modest impact on crime overall but are at their most effective in cutting vehicle crime in car parks, especially when used alongside improved lighting and the introduction of security guards.

The authors, who include Cambridge University criminologist, David Farrington, say while their results lend support for the continued use of CCTV, schemes should be far more narrowly targeted at reducing vehicle crime in car parks.

Results from a 2007 study in Cambridge which looked at the impact of 30 cameras in the city centre showed that they had no effect on crime but led to an increase in the reporting of assault, robbery and other violent crimes to the police.

Home Office ministers cited the review last week in their official response to the critical report from the House of Lords constitution committee on surveillance published earlier this year. The peers warned that the steady expansion of the "surveillance society", including the spread of CCTV, risked undermining fundamental freedoms, including the right to privacy.

In their response the Home Office disclosed that the National Police Improvement Agency is planning new research into the effectiveness of CCTV. The Campbell Collaboration review, by Farrington and a Massachusetts University criminologist, Brandon Welsh, concludes that CCTV is more effective in reducing crime in Britain than in other countries – as the Home Office points out. But it also makes clear that of the 44 research studies the authors reviewed, only seven covered countries outside Britain and four of those involved the United States.

The Campbell Collaboration report says that CCTV is now the single most heavily-funded crime prevention measure operating outside the criminal justice system and its rapid growth has come with a huge price tag. It adds that £170m was spent on CCTV schemes in town and city centres, car parks and residential areas between 1999 and 2001 alone. "Over the last decade, CCTV accounted for more than threequarters of total spending on crime prevention by the British Home Office," the report says.

The Lords report said that £500 million was spent in Britain on CCTV in the decade up to 2006, money which in the past would have gone on street lighting or neighbourhood crime prevention initiatives.

Welsh and Farrington say there has been concern that all this funding has been based on a handful of apparently successful schemes that were usually less than rigorously evaluated, done with varying degrees of competence and varying degrees of independence from government.

Their research review, which was funded by the Home Office and the Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, says that future CCTV schemes need high quality, independent evaluation.

The conclusions seem to be the same sorts of conclusions drawn in the last lot of academic analysis done into the impact of CCTV back in the mid 90s.

[snowychap]

From a while back on another thread:

Tin hats on - 1984 or brave new world?

Unmanned spy planes to police Britain

Big police operation planned for Stonehenge summer solstice

A big police operation involving an unmanned drone, horses and drugs sniffer dogs will be launched at Stonehenge tomorrow as huge crowds descend on the ancient site for the summer solstice.

Because the celebrations fall over the weekend and fine weather is predicted, bigger crowds than usual are expected and Wiltshire police have said they will clamp down heavily on antisocial behaviour.

Restrictions are being placed on the amount of alcohol revellers can bring in and police have said they will not tolerate illegal drug taking or unlawful raves.

The force's no-nonsense approach, after a more relaxed feel in recent years, has raised fears that there could be clashes.

Some peace-loving druids have told the Guardian that they will be staying away because they fear the combination of large crowds - possibly more than 30,000 ‑ and the police's stance could lead to trouble.

Police have played down the idea that the event is the first big test of how police control large crowds since the violent G20 protests. They have denied that the presence of the drone and police horses shows they are taking a "zero-tolerance" approach to the event and say such measures are simply to make sure everyone is safe.

Andy Marsh, assistant chief constable of Wiltshire police, said: "The celebrations will be policed the same as any other public event. We want those attending to have a safe and enjoyable time but within the law.

"This year the event is over a weekend and more people than normal are likely to attend. The public have a right to expect that our planning takes account of the likely increased numbers and also that we will use public resources efficiently making best use of the latest technology."

Marsh warned people not to set up raves or free festivals before or after the solstice. He said the supply and use of illegal drugs greatly increased the danger to everyone and police would deal "firmly but proportionately with any such behaviour".

English Heritage, which manages the site, has stipulated that no more than four cans of beer or a bottle of wine per person will be allowed.

In its guidance English Heritage says: "Illegal drugs are still illegal at Stonehenge as they are anywhere else. The police will be on site during the access period and will take immediate action against anyone flouting the law."

[ender4]

[Ads]

Ha, ha, ha! An M4 with a tazer!