CCTV is rubbish, say criminals

Criminals of most persuasions are, understandably, not very keen on closed circuit television cameras - but they don't let a little matter like that stand in the way of them going about their business.

Professor Martin Gill of Leicester University asked 101 offenders (probably students forced to shoplift and burgle in order to pay of their student debt) to rate 13 different crime prevention methods in order of effectiveness. SmartWater - a liquid substance which can be used to invisibly mark both property and thieves came out on top. Bars on windows, locks and police patrols were all rated more highly than CCTV, which came sixth.

Image from Schnews - used without permission (so please click the link and go and have a look at their site - believe me, you won't regret it).

Some sources claim there are around 4.2 million public cameras (ie; not those in shops, private homes etc.) in the UK, with half a million in London alone - roughly one for every 14 people. Yet there is very little evidence of their being an effective crime-fighting tool - according to research carried out by Justin Davenport, writing for the London Evening Standard says that 80% of crimes go unsolved and that "police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any." In fact, of the five London boroughs with the most cameras, four have below average solved crimes. Even the Metropolitan Police admit that, in 2008, just one crime per 1,000 cameras was solved.

Liberal Democrat policing spokeswoman Dee Doocey says that her party estimates 10,000 CCTV cameras in London "have cost the taxpayer in the region of £200 million in the last 10 years." Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? Could it not have been better spent on new police officers, seeing as how they're known to be a very effective method in both preventing and solving crimes?

The basic rate of pay for a Metropolitan officer is £22,104 per annum during the 31 week training period, then £24,675 per annum when initial training is complete; so we can assume that a copper costs £23,142 for the first year and £24,675 each year thereafter - £245,217 for ten years. Therefore, £200 million would pay for just 815.6 coppers...and 0.6 of a copper is no use to anyone.

That's why CCTV is such good value, you see. It might be fairly useless as far as crime prevention/detection/solving goes, but the public are so worried about crime they're willing to vote for any party which promises to be tough on criminals. All those CCTV cameras are highly noticeable - especially now that the civil liberties people have unintentionally helped the cause by drawing attention to them - so the Government get to look as though they're doing something while in actual fact they're sitting back and doing what they always do - a combination of worrying about how they can get enough votes to win General Elections instead of trying to improves the lives of British people and bugger all.

Gov. appeals to shed owners in the fight against terror

The anti-gravity machine will not be invented by NASA (pah - they've invented nothing of note since the 1970s) or in the laboratories of Oxbridge. Nor will the death ray, nor cold fusion, nor a method of faster than light travel. Nor even a cure for the common cold - all of these things will be invented by a flat cap-wearing, tea-fuelled old man named Fred or Bert, in the shed at the bottom of his garden somewhere in Britain.

This is where the magic happens.

These old boys are generally past retirement age and have wives who don't like them being in the house because they get in the way. As a result, from first thing in the morning to last thing at night, you'll find them pottering about in their creosoted refuges, developing Projects. In many cases, they don't really have a lot else to do with themselves - once a fortnight they'll either drive or take the bus into town with the missus to pick up their pensions and then they'll do a spot of shopping. Then, it's back home to the Shed.

Think back to your own childhood. Did your own dad or grandad have a shed? Mine both did, as did all of my friends' dads and grandads. Without revving up the ol' memory too much I can think of a fair few impressive things that they created - my dad used to take old motorbikes apart, tinker about with whatever motorbikes with are filled with and then, when he put them back together using various gearbox bits of his own design, they'd be able to travel at least 50mph faster than they originally could. My mate Will's grandad - at the age of 85 - decided to build a hovercraft powered by an Austin Allegro engine that he "just happened to have knocking about the place." He took it out for a test run on the school field, discovered it worked every bit as well as he'd planned (considerably better than an Austin Allegro, in fact) and then it vanished back into the shed and was never seen again. When he died seven years later and they cleared the shed out, it had disappeared entirely - presumably cannibalised and turned into other things. The there was Alan: his grandad built his own hydroponics system "for the tomatoes" and then grew his own extra-strong marijuana which, apparently, did his arthritis a world of good.

The Government know all this, which is why they're making an appeal for Britain's army of amateur inventors to suggest new devices to help in the war against terror. Security Minister Lord West calls it "one more tool in our fight against those who would wish to do us harm" and devices already created include a new type of barrier to halt suicide bombers in cars and a rocket-propelled net than can be fired at speedboats (somewhere out there, somebody's grandad has been banned for life from the local park after testing it out on the ducks). The nanotech homing knife missile can be only months from realisation. It is hoped that these inventions will prove crucial in what the BBC call "the fight against groups like al-Qaeda."

We have our own idea. We don't know what to call it yet, but since it's a fairly complex device we're not worried about sharing the details here because we doubt any of our readers will steal the concept. What it is, basically, is a sort of very highly-developed computer that has a massive amount of memory and can perform lightning-fast calculations based on extremely fuzzy variables without the owner-operator even realising it. Now, the really clever bit is in ensuring this computer will never be left at home, resulting in the owner becoming a potential victim of terrorist attack - being highly efficient, it can run on little power and as a result can be implanted within the human skull, where it will be kept at its optimum operating temperature by the bloodstream. Once in use, it will allow the owner to accurately assess the likelihood of terrorist attack at any given time - for example, if the owner sees a person with brown skin carrying a bag of some description, the computer will instantly recognise it as Mr. Anwar from down the road nipping to the shops for some catfood; rather than becoming confused and paranoid because of all the useless and scare-mongering stories continually crapped out by the media - this will also prevent the government from having to waste time creating all the new "in the nation's best interests" legislation like they've been doing since 2001 and get back to things like trying to patch the economy back together and otherwise doing good stuff instead of eroding our civil liberties. If he or she sees a man talking on a mobile phone while driving a white Transit van, he or she may immediately think of the Government's mind-numbingly stupid How to spot a terrorist poster, but the computer will instantly kick in and remind them that it's far more likely to be a builder negotiating the price for his next job (however, it will not prevent them from shouting, "Get off the phone and watch where you're bloody going, you just ran over and a killed a cyclist"). A continually-running sub-routine hard-wired into the device could even prevent the owner falling for the common and hopelessly incorrect idea that it is actually possible to "fight against groups like al-Qaeda" since al-Qaeda are not a group in the first place, and the name is merely a label given to a particular set of beliefs and causes and serves as no more than an umbrella term for those groups that believe in them.

Quiz: You see a man with a mobile phone and a white van. Terrorist or builder?
Write your answer on the back of a stamped postcard, then screw it up and throw it in the bin.

In time, we would hope to see the computer installed within authority figures too. As an example, a police officer fitted with one would not immediately assume that anybody who looks a bit foreign taking pictures of the House of Commons has plans to later blow it up (which would be a terrible crime - but only against architecture) - it's a million to one that they just want a nice photo to show to their friends when they get home to whichever country they've come here on holiday from. It could even be programmed to recognise the difference between a Brazilian student and an Arab suicide bomber, or between an unarmed newspaper vendor on his way home after work and a dangerous bomb-throwing anarchist, or British citizens taking advantage of their right to peaceful protest from a threat to Queen and country. You never know - if they had this ability, then perhaps they wouldn't waste so much time and money (and, in some very sad cases, lives) apprehending innocent, law-abiding people and then be able to concentrate on combatting real threats instead. Installed within a politician, it could enable the owner to realise that Osama bin Laden is almost certainly not in Afghanistan, is probably dead and continuing the Afghan war will solve nothing (with the possible exception of reducing the surplus of soldiers that they apparently think the armed forces have).

We know it works, because several people have already volunteered to be fitted with the devices and so far they've all given us positive feedback. Here's what Kevin Horrocks of Milton Keynes, one of the first of our victi...er, volunteers, has to say: "Oh yeah, I got one of these new skull-mounted computers and it's fookin' great. It just sits there mindin' its own business until I come across summat I don't fully understand, like. Then all I 'ave to go is switch it on by deciding not to swallow all the bullshit that's pumped at me and before you know it, it's 'ad a little think and I can make rational decisions based on actual facts. Thank you, Acid Rabbi!"

Mrs. Jenkins of Solihull is similarly glad she got hers fitted. "A year ago, before I was fitted with one of your incredible machines, I was constantly paranoid because it seemed to me that every dark-skinned person I saw or foreign accent I heard meant I was about to be torn limb from limb in a terrorist atrocity - but now, I can walk down the street without fear, because I know that all the people I see are just normal people like myself, going about my everyday business. My children are delighted, because I let them play outside with their friends now that I know there isn't a paedophile hiding behind every tree. Best of all, it saved me money because I make my own opinions now instead of buying the Daily Mail everyday. Jolly good value, if you ask me."

If you'd like to try one out for yourself, it couldn't be any easier. Simply leave a request in the comments section, and the following night we'll send one over the Internet directly into your own skull. The next morning when you wake up, watch the news and question what you're being told - you'll be amazed at your own ability to think and will never have to believe whatever rubbish you're told ever again. Best of all - it's free!

Lords sides with Muslims over MPs

The Government has suffered yet another defeat in the House of Lords after peers voted in support of establishing a new independent commissioner for terrorism suspects.

This is not the first time the Lords has opposed the Commons over anti-terrorist legislation, much of which has been highly contentious, with notable past defeats including Tony Blair's attempt to increase the maximum time a terrorist suspect can be held without charge from 28 days to 90 in 2005. In 2008, another attempt to extend it to 45 days was made, briefly accepted and then overturned by the Lords. Law Lords led by Lord Philips of Worth-Matravers have also recently attacked controversial control orders which can be used to prevent a suspect from seeing evidence being used against him or her, effectively denying them the right to make an appeal. The Common's opposition to the creation of the new post was backed by MPs from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and some cross-party members.

A group of peers led by Lord Lloyd of Berwick (pictured right), a retired Law Lord, demanded that the new post be created and won the vote by 145 votes to 102. He said that the commissioner would act as the "the eyes and ears of the judge," entirely independently, in those cases where the police try to extend a suspect's detention prior to a charge being made.

In essence, the new commissioner will help to ensure that innocent people will not be detained for any longer than is necessary. Fears that it might lead to guilty people being freed are dismissed by former Chief Inspector of the Constabulary Lord Dear, who says he believes "that the greater good that may be achieved by the creation of the commissioner post far outweighs any potential disadvantage." The commissioner will be granted access to secret evidence, available to neither the suspect nor the suspect's lawyer, in order to be able to advise the judge on the best course of action.

Although Lord Lloyd points out that the creation of the post will reassure Britain's 2.4 million strong Muslim community, of which some members have been feeling (not without reason) distinctly alienised and even criminalised by various legislation and the extreme opinions of a small minority of the non-Muslim population, it will be of equal service to anyone of any other background who is unfortunate enough to be falsely suspected of plotting or carrying out terrorist offences.

The Guildford Four were wrongly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1970s. After many years in prison, their convictions were overturned. The people who carried out the bombings for which they were blamed remain free. Had the commissioner for terrorism supects have existed then, these innocent people might never have been convicted - and the police investigation would have continued, perhaps eventually capturing the real perpetrators before the trail went cold.

Had the commissioner have existed in the 1970s, the trial of the Guildford Four - wrongly convicted and imprisoned for a number of years after being sentenced to life for bombing attacks they did not carry out - may well have had a very different outcome. When an innocent person is convicted of a crime they did not commit, the investigation into that crime ends which allows the real perpetrator to remain free. The police are, unfortunately, not infallible and in some cases may be too keen to be seen to be achieving results which can lead to wrongful convictions - the new commissioner will decrease the likelihood of innocent people ending up in jail and increase the likelihood of guilty people facing prosecution.

House of Commons ministers have argued that one commissioner will be insufficient to cover the entire country and that the plan will cost far more than Lord Lloyd claims. How much is too much to ensure innocent people remain at liberty and terrorists, who seek to or may even successfully kill large numbers of men, women and children, are removed from society and given the long sentences they deserve?

Malloch-Brown attacks PM

Lord Malloch-Brown, the Home Office minister who announced his decision to step down from the Government earlier this week, has delivered a stinging attack on Gordon Brown despite having been considered one of the Prime Minister's closest Parliamentary allies.


The minister's career in UK politics was short and marked by controversy. Enobled and brought into the Government as part of the PM's "government of all talents," he caused a rift between No.10 and George Bush's White House administration almost as soon as he joined the Home Office. He is widely credited as being largely responsible for the success of the G20 Summit held in London earlier this year, an event which had a massive beneficial effect on Mr. Brown's reputation as a world leader and his resignation is seen by many as another blow to the PM's already precarious position as leader of the Labour party.

Malloch-Brown says that Latin American and South-East Asian countries - nations known for corruption, unrest and revolution - exhibit better "strategic thinking" than Mr. Brown's Government and that British politics are "disappointingly shortsighted." He is also said to have become angry when it was first announced that the enquiry held into the Iraq war - a conflict that he opposed - would be held in secret, a decision that was later reversed in an embarrassing U-turn for the Government.

According to colleages, "Mark [Malloch-Brown] had never worked in Whitehall before, and it is fair to say he was shocked at how everything was cobbled together at the last minute and no one took the time to plan ahead. It was not uniquely a problem with Brown, but a feature of the British political culture." He had previously put his decision to quit down to what he called "personal and family reasons," but his recent statements seem to suggest that he has always had severe misgivings about Gordon Brown, his abilities as Prime Minister and his style of politics - which is likely to be seen by the electorate as confirming their own, similar, views.

Brown suffers further set-back as Lord Malloch-Brown resigns

The Prime Minister - trying his utmost to get the Labour party shipshape for the coming General Election - has suffered a serious set-back as it was revealed today that another minister has announced his resignation and will leave at the summer recess. Lord Malloch-Brown, who was enobled and brought in as part of Mr. Brown's "government of all the talents," puts his decision down to "personal and family reasons". Of the five ministers brought in on that occasion, just three remain following the departure of Lord Carter last month.

News of Lord Malloch-Brown's resignation will not have been welcome to Gordon Brown's ears.

Malloch-Brown, one of the PM's closest allies, has previously undergone close examination when it emerged that he had taken advantage of a grace-and-favour flat once used by John Prescott. He also courted controversy when he battled with President Bush's administration, causing a break with the White House shortly after beginning his time with the Foreign Office.

The departure of such a close friend and ally will further weaken Mr. Brown's already-precarious position at the head of his party. The PM will surely be very disappointed to enter the run-up to the Election without the help of the man who was largely responsible for the success of the G20 summit, an event which dramatically improved his reputation on the world stage.

Immigrants do not jump social housing queues, says EHRC

An Equality and Human Rights Commission study has produced evidence that immigrants in Britain cannot "jump ahead" of residents born here in queues for council or social housing, a widely-held belief much played upon by the British National Party. Once settled here - which means once they are just as liable for taxation as anyone else and thus entitled to the same assistance - no greater percentage of council housing is occupied by immigrants than by any other group.

Immigrants from all around the world have long been contributing to British society and culture.
Royalty-free image by Indeed, found at gettyimages.co.uk.

At present, housing of this type is awarded entirely according to the needs of the applicant and immigrants are not able to claim an occupancy until five years after they have settled here. John Healey, the Housing Minister, said that he believes the miconception that certain groups are favoured and as such have a better chance of finding accomodation is "largely a problem of perception" and that he wanted to "nail the myth" that certain groups are losing out. The commission's study discovered that just 11% of those immigrants to have arrived in Britain - all of them asylum seekers, amongst the most needy people in society - are given help with housing.

Most interestingly, once they have been here for five years and become eligible for help, a mere one in six live in council/social housing - precisely the same amount as people born here. This provides more proof that the BNP's policies are designed soley to pander to common fears, rather than to recognise and solve any real problems in society, in a blatantly cynical attempt to woo voters.

The worry, which may be unfounded but is nevertheless very real, that immigrants are unintentionally preventing native British people from receiving the help they need has been impossible to miss. Certain sections of the media - especially certain tabloid newspapers - have whipped what was once a vaguely-felt worry into fully-fledged racism by printing highly-questionable stories which have resulted in violence such as the shocking attacks on Romanians in Northern Ireland, attacks that deliberately endangered the lives of children.

The Government are to be held at least partially to blame for this, as they have done little or nothing to prevent the escalation of a misconstrued concern into racial, xenophobic and nationalistic hatred other than using the issue as a cheap way to score points and voters as each party claimed to be the only one who will do an ill-defined "something about it." Had they have addressed the public's concerns previously, we would now have a wealth of evidence suggesting that immigrants contribute to and are a positive aspect in society (as an example, while British Asians make up just 4% of the UK's populace, they contribute 6% of the nation's GDP) rather than a drain upon it and its resources, instead of being in the situation within which we now find ourselves where otherwise normal, once-tolerant citizens are now so worried that they are willing to vote for an extremist, neo-fascist organisation that cynically takes advantage of their fears and promises to get rid of the immigrant bogeyman.