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.

Photography: not illegal

Following recent concerns that police have been using anti-terror laws to harrass people taking photographs - especially if they're photographing officers, which is something that really annoys them - the Metropolitan service has been issued with new guidelines reminding them that using a camera in a public place is not in fact a crime.

Many officers really, really hate having the picture taken. So make sure you take lots.
Image by Terry, taken from Wikipedia, used in accordance with Creative CommonsAttribution 2.0 license.

According to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, it is an offence to collect or make "a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" or to possess "a document or record containing information of that kind," but it does not form a ban on photography of any kind.

The guidelines are thought to include a reminder that the public do not need a license to take photographs, and officers cannot legally prevent them from doing so even if it's them being photographed. However, they can demand to look at pictures on a digital camera or mobile phone to check whether or not they could be deemed useful to a terrorist, so be careful when taking detailed pictures of public and government buildings. - tourists might want to strategically get a finger in the way when taking a snap of their family standing outside Parliament.

Acid Rabbi tried to get a job with Al Qaeda last week, but was turned down due to not owning the necessary white Ford Transit. Apparently, their equal opportunities scheme doesn't extend to Jewish people anyway.

Professional gardeners who own mobile phones, carry a camera to take pictures of their work and have just nipped down to the local garden centre in the Transit to buy some fertiliser - possession of these items indicating that the owner may be a terrorist, according to the rather ridiculous warning posters seen in many public places - will no doubt be very relieved to hear that in future they only need to stuff the phone, manure and van into their pockets if they notice an approaching copper.

Police criticised over G20

The police - and the tactics they employ - have been heavily criticised as part of the investigation into their handling of the G20 protests in London earlier this year which led to the death of an innocent passer-by after he was attacked by officers who, it has emerged, were authorised to utilise "reasonable force" just before the incident.

"Kettling" (seen here during the G8 protests in Edinburgh), a tactic used by police to herd protestors into and contain them within a confined area, is one of the controversial public order methods used during the G20 protests.
Image by Sam Fentress, taken from Wikipedia, used in accordance with GNU Free Documentation and Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 licenses.

Chief Inspector of Constabulary Denis O'Connor also said that the police public order training manual is "inadequate for the world police are operating in" and that police operations had concentrated on containing the protestors and preventing disorder rather than protecting and facilitating what he referred to as the "very precious freedom" of peaceful public protest.

He went on to say that those officers filmed by the public and seen to have removed their identifying badges from uniforms had "no excuse." The badges, which list the officer's number, are meant to be worn by all uniformed officers at all times so that they can be easily identified if a complaint is made by a member of the public. There is a widespread feeling that any officer who removes them does not wish to be identified and as such is almost certainly planning to act unlawfully.

Mr. O'Connor also highlighted the fact that there is no information available on the risks of injury resulting from the police practice of using riot shields as a mobile barricade with which to herd protestors. Shields are used when police use controversial "kettling" techniques which enable them to force large crowds into confined spaces so as to contain and control them. During the protests, he said, officers were unclear over whether or not they were permitted to use their own discretion when deciding to allow individuals - who may have been distressed or in need of medical attention - to leave these areas.

Liberty, the human rights and civil liberties organisation, have welcomed the report but state that further investigation into the tactics used by the specialist police Territorial Support Group, which they describe as "militaristic," is needed.

Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Chris Allison denies that senior officers are unaware of the human rights aspects of operations such as those at G20 and similar incidents. "As a police service," he says, "we have clear duties under the law: to facilitate protest, minimise the impact it has on others and maintain peace on our streets."

However, the heavy-handed approach adopted serves only to further erode public confidence in the police, with many otherwise law-abiding people now openly suspicious and even hostile towards them. During Thatcher's time as Prime Minister, the UK verged on becoming a monetarist society in which finance mattered most. This culminated in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of 1993 under John Major's Government, Part V of which substantially changed the law and police powers related to public protest, legislation that resulted in a widespread fear that the public's right to protest against moves, practices and entities they thought unjust. Since then, there has been a marked change in popular opinion leading to a return to more human values which has in turn led to a belief that human and individual rights and freedoms are more important than those enjoyed by corporations - this includes a conviction that the right to protest must be protected and that, as Mr. O'Connor realises, that right is precious.

Acid Rabbi himself (in those days, a painfully right-on anarcho-communist student with the badges and Crass albums to match) attended the protests against the Act, and was shocked by the aggressive tactics employed by the police as they moved to break up a peaceful crowd that had gathered at the end of the march and was enjoying a party atmosphere in the summer sunshine. If you have ever been crammed with a few thousand other people (some of them dreadlocked crusties...on a hot day...) into a tiny, dead-end street where there's not even room to park a couple of cars, you will know what "kettling" is like when you find yourself on the receiving end. The public - whom the police are supposed to protect and serve - no longer believe that all protests must be prevented; the Internet and citizen journalism has brought too many miscarriages of justice, undemocratic companies who would ride rough-shod over public rights while polluting our environment with poisons and the human rights abuses made possible by the changes in the law since the WTC attacks for that to have remained the case. Public feeling has changed in favour of peaceful protest - the police are our servants and must recognise this so that they can update their tactics and serve their masters as their masters wish.

Police WILL investigate MPs

Scotland Yard, following a suggestion yesterday from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson that officers were considering whether or not some MPs may have acted unlawfully in submitting dubious expenses claims, has announced that an investigation will go ahead.

The famous No.10 copper could be knocking on your door and asking you to answer a few questions soon, Mr. Brown, so best hide your kingsize fag papers just in case.

It is known that officers from Economic and Specialist Crime will head the investigation, but police have not yet given any indication concerning which MPs will be questioned. Two weeks ago it was said to be very unlikely that any Member would face prosecution but there has been widespread public anger since then, fuelled further by yesterday's publication of expense documents online.

Police investigators and legal experts have been working with Commons officials since suspicions that some of the claims might be unlawful first arose some time ago when the Daily Telegraph began printing details from their own copy of the documents. The Labour party has thus far declined to give any comment other than stating that it would be inappropriate for them "to comment on an ongoing police investigation," but further statements can be expected.

Let's hope they'll be examined every bit as scrupulously as any of us would be if we were caught trying to trick our employers into paying for either a business lunch we hadn't in fact had or an item unrelated to our work. A few MPs looks rather as though they may have committed fraud and it is to be hoped that, should they be brought to account, they will face the harshest punishment available to them so that they serve as an example to future generations of politicians who might consider using our taxes for their own personal enrichment.

MPs may face criminal investigation

Following today's publication of MPs' expenses - albeit in heavily rededacted form - Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has suggested that there is a chance of some MPs and peers being called upon to answer questions related to possible criminal activity.

Detectives and Crown Prosecution Service officers are known to be examining details of claims submitted by a small number of MPs and in some cases this may bring about allegations of fraud. It is believed that those known to have made doubtable claims involving mortgage payments - such as Elliot Morley who put irregularities down to oversight and maintains his innocence - have been under suspicion for some time, though police have made it clear that there will be no prosecution unless deliberate wrong-doing can be proved.

Those bars could be in front of Elliot Morley before too long.

According to The Guardian, Manzila Pola Uddin - the Bangladeshi-born Baroness of Bethnal Green - could also face questions after it was alleged that she declared an uninhabited flat in Maidstone to be her main residence - an action that, if true, would have made her eligible to claim expenses to cover the costs of her London home.

David Chaytor, the MP for Lancashire's Bury North, claims that like Mr. Morley he had not realised his mortgage had been paid off and as a result continued claiming. Though he was subsequently suspended from the parliamentary Labour party and Mr. Morley resigned from the Cabinet, both could face police enquiries. Likewise Jim Devine, who has been deselected following allegations that he submitted a false receipt - including fake name, address and VAT number of a mysterious electrician who has since died, thus very conveniently allowing Mr. Devine to escape having to produce him to prove he actually ever existed - to enable himself to claim £2157 for some rewiring work may also have to give some answers.

If one or more MPs are imprisoned as a result of their dodgy dealings, who fancies putting in an application for a Visiting Order? Acid Rabbi will even buy you a pint afterwards. E-mail us if you're up for it!

It's not just MPs...

Auditors called in to examine the American Express accounts of Scotland Yard detectives have revealed that over 300 detectives are under suspicion in an investigation that was at first thought to involve just 40 police employees. So far, 3500 records have been examined, so approximately 1 in every 11 officers have been caught up in the findings.

Today's Observer reports that items purchased with Amex credit cards have included fishing rods, suits and women's clothing - we're not too sure why a newspaper with such impeccable credentials as the Observer feels the need to make a definition between suits and women's clothing rather than just saying clothing; possibly they're trying to suggest that a male officer has been buying some nice frocks and lingerie either for a girlfriend or for himself, but we're sure everyone is aware that there are both male and female police officers.

Do you get it? Bent copper! Ha ha ha...how f*cking funny are we?

Officers involved in specialist operation work were issued with the cards in 2006. Officers from the Specialist Crime Directorate were included in a scheme a short while later, the intention in both cases being that they would be used to pay for subsistence and travel so that officers were not forced to spend their own money when on long investigations which often take them far from Scotland Yard for extended periods of time.

One officer spent £40,000 in a single year despite not having permission to do so from his seniors, leading Jenny Jones of the Green Party to claim: "Taxpayers have every right to be angry about this." She's quite right - we're getting ripped off left, right and centre!

Seemingly-flagrant examples of abuse have included cashpoint withdrawals of several hundred pounds and the purchase of three-piece suits in the Middle East - it is also alleged that some officers have obtained blank restaurant receipts, later filling them in with details of fictional meals to account for spending.

Officers suspected of dishonestly spending £1000 or more have subsequently been referred to the Directorate of Professional Standards who will look further into the allegations and decide what needs to be done. It is understood that 46 cases have been passed on to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for further study.

"It beggars belief," continues Ms. Jones, "that our police, who are supposed to be solving crime, are suspected of fraud on a grand scale." She may very well be the only person thinking that way - the majority of the British public would probably believe just about anything we were told right now when it comes to authority figures lining their own pockets.