Archive for April, 2009
Is Gordon Brown of this world?
I posed a question on Squidoo recently:
How do you think British MPs expenses should be changed, if at all?
The range of answers that came back, were diverse, but none included the concept that Gordon Brown has managed to suggest.
Some people even directly commented on the Prime Ministers idea of a daily allowance:
‘…Daily MPs allowance. The disgusting attempt to raise MPs salaries by the back door ever….’
Other ideas suggested included:
‘…Parliament should build another Porculis House, but full of apartments, for MPs to stay, whilst in London….’
Gordon Brown
How Gordon Brown can really believe that the indignation many people feel about MPs being paid expenses for items such as bath plugs, fictitious ‘primary residences’, flowers, Persian Rugs and porn films is better served by every MP receiving a daily allowance is beyond comprehension.
Does he not understand that it is the very fact that MPs are seen to be on the gravy train and claiming for unacceptable allowances, which is the issue?
People are demanding transparency, yet he has become so far detached from reality, that he truly believes that transparency means providing MPs with a daily payment for which they do not have to make any account of what it is spent on.
This is a clear indication of his complete disconnect with the people he is meant to be serving. It is the same type of reality detachment Margaret Thatcher underwent. Had politicians actually had an interest in serving their constituents, then last year they would have forced through a change in the expenses and payments system, but they failed to handle the situation.
Politicians are viewed by many, who have supported them for years, as morally corrupt, leading to even lower support for the British Democratic system. Because MPs are unable to understand their role in Society, they are leading themselves to their own downfall.
The current British Democracy can not survive for long, when less than 50% of the voting population bother to cast their votes and this threshold is likely to be broken in the near term. Politicians probably have one more election in which to change their ways, before their supporters, those who vote, will be outnumbered by those who see no value in the Democratic System, those who don’t vote.
At that tipping point, their will have to be a change. Already we are governed by a party where over two thirds of the voting population do not support their policies, once we have a system whereby over fifty percent of those eligible to vote do not even support the system, it can only be a short time before a power vacuum is created and who knows where the country heads.
Gordon Brown, ignoring the reality of the disgust many people have for the way MPs behave over their personal finances, can not be left unchallenged.
The arrogance shown by politicians in dealing with this issue will not be forgotten.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=666311d9-ed5d-48a8-ab5b-3685a92bd9b9)
Death of Ian Tomlinson – Cover up or incompetence?
Now that the findings of the Second Post Mortem have come to light, which indicate that Ian Tomlinson died due to internal bleeding, in contrast to the initial post mortem which pointed to a heart attack, it is apposite to question the actions of the authorities.
After Mr. Tomlinson died, on the 1st April in the City of London, the police immediately declared he had died from a suspected heart attack.
Initially, the City of London police were left to conduct their own inquiry, despite witnesses coming forward to say they had seen Tomlinson being in contact with police. A fact the police denied.
Ian Tomlinson just after being pushed over by a police officer
On 4th April the Mail carried this picture of Mr. Tomlinson. This picture was taken moments after Mr. Tomlinson was pushed over by the police officer, who was subsequently suspended. Although the accompanying report makes no mention of the push by the Police Officer, it is not improbable to suppose that this photograph was looked at by the Police who confirmed this was in-fact Mr. Tomlinson and it should have prompted one of those police officers in the photograph to recall that just a moment earlier this man had been pushed to the ground. But the police continued to deny any knowledge of this fact.
If you look at the video again of the push on Mr. Tomlinson, you can see a photographer taking a still image of Mr. Tomlinson on the ground.
I wonder if he stepped forward to provide evidence. The people, who helped Mr. Tomlinson up off the ground, would possibly have come forward to say that Mr. Tomlinson had been pushed. I find it very difficult to believe that the police officers, who were close by the scene of Mr. Tomlinson’s push, would not have been aware that this was the man who died a few minutes later, but it appears that they ‘forgot’.
It was not until 6th April when the video was released which showed Mr. Tomlinson being pushed to the ground that suddenly memories were jogged and police officers suddenly remembered from video they were around, having failed to remember from still photographs or claims made by witnesses.
The IPCC failed completely in their initial approach to this case leaving the handling of the investigation with the City of London Police, despite calls for an independent enquiry.
The first post mortem was carried out by Home Office Pathologist Dr Freddy Patel and the results of the post-mortem announced that the death of Mr. Tomlinson was due to a heart attack; despite finding Mr Tomlinson had a substantial amount of blood in the abdominal cavity.
But the post mortem declared exactly as the police told everyone just three hours after his death that it was all due to a heart attack.
It was a little unusual that Dr. Patel was asked to conduct the post mortem as more typically the Forensic Pathology Services, a body of nine independent forensic pathologists, usually deals with suspicious deaths in London and the home-counties.
Dr. Patel it transpires has a slight blemish on his record, having previously been reprimanded by the GMC after he released medical details about a man who died controversially in police custody.
The case would have been left here, with the police denying any previous contact between Mr. Tomlinson and the Police and a comfortable post mortem result were it not for the video taken, ironically by an American Fund Manager.
There are still witnesses claiming Mr. Tomlinson was attacked by the Police on more than one occasion, though of course the police are denying this, without caarrying out any investigation, in the same manner that they denied ever being in contact with him at all.
After the release of the video, the family of Mr. Tomlinson and the IPCC secured a second post mortem, this time carried out by Dr Nat Cary, who concluded Mr. Tomlinson that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage. He accepts the findings of Dr. Patel that there is evidence of coronary atherosclerosis but states that in his opinion its nature and extent is unlikely to have contributed to the cause of death.
The additional worry is that the IPCC covered up the results of this second post mortem for a week, while the IPCC continued its investigations, although the family were aware of the findings.
As a result of the findings of the second post mortem a Metropolitan police officer has been interviewed under caution for the offence of manslaughter.
There can be no doubt that the Police knew that Mr. Tomlinson was pushed over by a police officer, though they continued to deny this right up to the point of a video being produced, this can not be acceptable. The Police decided 3 hours after the death of a man that they would announce he had died of a suspected heart attack and proceeded to appoint a pathologist outside of the normal procedure.
The IPCC refused to take the complaint seriously, despite people stepping forward as witnesses to the pushing over of Mr. Tomlinson, until a video was produced, this can not be acceptable. The police are still denying that Mr. Tomlinson was attacked on more than one occasion, refusing to investigate the allegations, this can not be acceptable.
The Police officers who stood by and watched this attack and refused to come forward until the video was released, despite the publication of a photograph on 4th April clearly identifying the man and police officers nearby, just moments after a police officer pushed him over and while the police were still denying the assault ever took place have not been publicly named and reprimanded and this is not acceptable. They were witnesses to an assault and assisted the police force in covering up the assault.
Regardless of deaths, videos or photographs, the fact that police officers can stand by and watch a colleague assault a member of the public without stepping forward is unacceptable.
This was not the only police assault on the day, but unfortunately, only those with video evidence are being investigated. This is a disgrace and leads to further undermining of the trust some people have in the police force. For those who already have no trust, these incidences further underline their mistrust.
The New York Times blog reports today ‘…“saw a bunch of protesters trying to stop a guy in black throwing bottles at the police, the protesters had an argument him and then accused him of being a policeman, whereupon he ran to the police cordon, showed some I.D. and was let through!”…’
While currently the British public in general may become agitated they do not take more forceful action: The lack of trust in the Police, lack of trust in the Political process and lack of trust in the Judiciary having freedom from Political interference, in tandem with a general feeling of antagonism towards institutional services, can only be force that pent up frustration to boiling point at some stage.
The Metropolitan police have an abysmal record in murdering people on the streets of London and it is time they were completely overhauled.
This is either a cover up or incompetence, either way the Met as it stands is not fit for purpose.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=485811ad-591f-475e-8424-9e84829dfeee)
Saving up for retirement, try the new ‘Cock-up’ Pension Plan
The Government are keen to ensure everyone has a pension pot to draw down from once they reach retirement and the aim is to drive people to save towards those pensions. New pension legislation will require employers to opt people into pension schemes, though these plans are under some criticism as smaller employers will be required to spend an inordinate amount of time in pension scheme administration.
With the recent collapse in equity markets, many people have found their pension pot slashed by 30% leading many to question the stability of private pensions.
There is a much easier way to ensure a decent pension. It does require dedication and hard work, but like all good pension schemes, will enable you to retire earlier than you may have anticipated and you may even find yourself receiving a larger than expected pension, when it comes to draw down.
For some reason the Government and pension brokers are not pushing the new ‘Cock-up’ pension plan.
The scheme requires you do achieve a level of authority in an organisation. A level senior enough that when you wish to draw your pension, you are able to make such a significant cock-up, that your suggestion of retirement is a welcome relief to those around you.
According to the National Statistics Office
The average employee in private sector defined benefit occupational pension schemes contributed 4.9 per cent of salary to their pension in 2007, compared with 2.7 per cent for employees in defined contribution schemes.
In 2007, the average employer contribution rate for private sector defined benefit schemes was 15.6 per cent of salary, compared with 6.5 per cent for defined contribution schemes.
If instead of investing at the full rate of 15.6%, to achieve the ‘cock-up’ pension you are advised to invest part of this money in ongoing education, you will then be better be placed to achieve higher office in your organisation and the higher the post held, the better the payout.
How does the ‘cock-up’ pension work?
Fred Goodwin
Let us take as an example. Sir Fred Goodwin, the former head of RBS.
Had he tried to purchase his pension on the open market at the age of 50, with index linking and widows benefit it would have required a pension pot of £30 000 000.
His salary including bonuses was £4.2 million a year.
Using the average yardsticks this would have amounted to an employee and employer contribution of about £900 000 in the year. To build up this pot would have taken just over 30 years to amass (excluding investment growth), assuming average earnings over that time of £4.2 million a year.
Lets try another example.
Bob Quick
Bob Quick, former Assistant Commissioner, who recently retired after wandering around with security documents on full view. He has been pushing his luck for a little while, well actually since he achieved 30 years service in the Police Force.
He was forced to make 3 public apologies in three months. Initially accusing the Conservative party of a smear campaign and following up with his exposure of secret documents.
Mr. Quick joined the Police force in 1978 and was forced to retire 31 years later at the age of 49 with a guaranteed pension of £114,000 a year, or a £520,000 lump sum and £85,000 a year.
Rules on police pensions, to which officers contribute 11 per cent of salary, provide payouts of two-thirds of final salary for those who have served 30 years.
Apart from salary increases Mr. Quick had little more benefit to gain from his pension. At the age of 49, he is comfortably set up with his pension and at the age of 49, has plenty of time to pursue a new career.
Had either of these characters not achieved high profile offices, then the likely effect of their actions would have been instant dismissal and although pension entitlements would have still been earned.
In the case of Mr. Goodwin, there is little doubt his final pension would have been considerably lower and in the case of Mr. Quick being fired from the police service, is not a good reference to start out on a new career.
I really think the Government and pension brokers need to push the ‘Cock-up’ pension plan more robustly as the substantial benefits to be gained using this method of pension provision would have tremendous benefits in reducing the reliance many of our current pensioners and future pensioners have on state support.
Further emphasis on ongoing training, which sits well with the Government mantra of higher education for all, reduced state funding of pensioners and happier pensioners who can afford to retire in their late 40’s and early 50’s, must be a win-win.
Oh dear, just one problem with the plan. It is the taxpayer who has to support these ‘Cock-up’ pension plans. Never mind as a pensioner you will be laughing your way to the bank (what is left of them).
On behalf of tax-payers, back to the drawing board.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5239242d-363f-41fd-bf6c-fed01d965aca)
Ban protest in the UK and support mainstream Media
Maximum force
Policing of demonstrations in the UK has once again been called in to question. The Police forces involve approach demonstrations as though every protester is a subversive out to destroy the State and cause the maximum amount of damage.
Some of the mainstream media unfortunately follow this hype, making much of isolated incidents of scuffles to raise the sentiment against protestors.
Within days of the police assault and subsequent death of Ian Tomlinson which is being investigated, both the BBC and the Times once again seek to malign protest.
ASEAN protest 2009 - Photo/Sakchai Lalit
In Thailand, at the ASEAN summit, a group of protesters were able to gain access to conference venue, which resulted in its cancellation, with those present being evacuated.
The BBC showed what they like to think was dramatic footage of helicopters evacuating some of the 16 leaders present at the summit, failing to mention that the Malaysian Prime Minister, as an example, left later in the day by car.
The BBC correspondent gleefully declared, that Thailand was ‘…a laughing stock..’ having permitted 200 demonstrators force the closure of the conference and drawing a derisory tone over the colours worn by the various protest groups in Thailand, and scoffing at how the International airport in Thailand had been recently closed due to another protest group.. Asking us to imagine how it would have been had the recent G20 summit been cancelled under similar circumstances and more specifically claiming that the Police in Thailand were weak in not quelling the protest and indicating that the British Policing of the recent G20 in London was far more appropriate.
Ian Tomlinson - REUTERS/Andrew Winning
I guess the rose tinted glasses of BBC reporters are not too much of a surprise, but the crassness of the statement that British Policing, is a standard any country should wish to aspire on the very day a March was held in London in remembrance of Ian Tomlinson’s death, was astounding.
The fact that Thailand is undergoing extreme political upheaval and that over 2 000 protesters were at the conference centre, appears to have flown over the head of this reporter.
Sri Lanka protest London 2009
The Sunday Times today have managed to run a story about another demonstration in London in which 100 000 people gathered to protest against the Sri Lankan government failing to declare a ceasefire in their fight against the Tamil Tigers. A very short report, which talked very little about the political or social situation in Sri Lanka, managed to round off the piece with a condemning tone: ‘Police made three arrests’, creating the impression once again that protests only lead to trouble and what the protest is actually about becomes a non-story.
To the mainstream media who are instilling the perception that some have, that protests are nothing more than a gathering of the violent, I would suggest they are falling out of step with public opinion, in the same way that they condemn politicians of being out of tune.
I further ask where would we be as a Society without demonstration?
The Tolpuddle Martyrs of 1834, who were sentenced to seven years in penal colony in Australia. The subsequent protests led to their sentences being repealed and the legacy is modern trades unionism, with the NUJ being one with which these nay sayers may have some knowledge.
History has shown repeatedly Society and protestors resort to greater levels of violence when their voice remains unheard.
The Suffragettes were extremely violent.
- Image via Wikipedia
In 1905 Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney interrupted a political meeting in Manchester to ask Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey if they believed women should have the right to vote, neither man replied. They got out a banner which had on it “Votes for Women” and shouted at the two politicians to answer their questions. They were arrested for causing an obstruction and a technical assault on a police officer. Both women refused to pay a fine deciding to go to prison to highlight the injustice of the system.
The Suffragettes burned down churches as the Church of England was against what they wanted; they vandalised Oxford Street; they chained themselves to Buckingham Palace as the Royal Family were seen to be against women having the right to vote; they sailed up the Thames and shouted abuse through loud hailers at Parliament as it sat; others refused to pay their tax. Politicians were attacked as they went to work, their homes were fire bombed.
When sent to prison many went on hunger strike. The government was concerned some may die and become martyrs. Prison governors were ordered to force feed Suffragettes but this caused a public outcry.
The response by Asquith was to introduce, in 1913 the Prisoners, Temporary Discharge for Health Act, the ‘Cat and Mouse Act’, similar tactics have continually been employed by subsequent Governments, to quell protest. I am sure these NUJ members will recall the 1980’s legacy particularly of Wapping and the miners strike.
The Suffragette movement supported Britain in the war effort and in 1918; the Representation of the People Act was passed by Parliament.
Brixton Riots
The police abuse of the Suss Law in the 1980’s led to the violent protests across the UK and as a result the law was repealed after an investigation into the Brixton Riots. Once again controversial legislation in 2007 is causing unrest, along with the abuse of the Terrorism Act 2000 and potential abuse of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.
poll tax demonstration
The 70 000 people who attended the Poll Tax demonstration in 1990 successfully forced a change in Government policy.
Since that time, protests have largely been ignored, with the media sitting on the side of the politicians, seeking to portray demonstrators as violent thugs, ignoring the reality of the demonstration.
London Anti-War protest
The anti-war protests ongoing since 2001 have had no effect on British Politicians, while other countries around the world have listened to the people they represent.
British Politicians following the US political lead, not the demands of the British Population.
Perhaps Policing of protesters in Thailand was not good enough for the British Media and they would prefer the UK had an Ian Tomlinson at every demonstration, a Tiananmen Square every time people took to the streets.
To answer the question posed by the BBC reporter, what would Britain have looked like had the protestors at the G20 been policed in a similar manner to the way the Thai police handled the ASEAN protest. The answer is a happier and better place. Not one with a dead body as its legacy.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=87df2962-b008-47bb-8067-86d353f226ef)
Chief Superintendent Ian Johnston explains why the Police can not be trusted
On BBC Radio 4 this morning on the Today programme, Chief Superintendent Ian Johnston, was interviewed about the question of declining public confidence in the Police Force.
Whilst brief, the interview gave Johnston, who is the President of the Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales, an opportunity to put defend against the accusation being made, about declining confidence and what, if anything the Police intended to do about it.
He concedes that the proposition is probably correct. He puts an emphasis on the politicisation of the police force. He added that politicians are far too involved in policing, but didn’t attempt to suggest a solution, merely accepting this as a fact of life.
While many people may already feel we live in a Police State, others would say this is untrue. However when we have a Senior Police Officer commenting that the politicisation of the Police Force is a fact of life, there can be little doubt that we are heading towards a Police State, in which the Police Force are directly run by the Government.
In a similar vein the Government are making inroads into control of the Judiciary. Fairly recently Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, decided that the release of intelligence information in the case of Binyam Mohamed, would put the public of the United Kingdom at risk. The decision has been clearly acknowledged as being due to political influence.
The conversation then turned towards the public face of the police and in particular the aspect of police behaviour and apologies for mistakes.
Here Johnston showed that the Police really don’t care about their public service, or public perception.
Ian Tomlinson the push
The interview ranged on to the Police never acknowledging their mistakes and apologizing, until it is far too late and the damage has been done. Johnston just couldn’t see this issue.
He insisted: ‘..we have got away from that now and are perhaps better at making an apology when it is apparent something has gone wrong, but it is difficult, particularly when you have the Independent Police Complaint Commission given an enquiry to carry out….’
Firstly we do not hear the Police apologize in a timely manner. Secondly citing the IPCC as a reason not to apologize is fatuous.
There is absolutely no reason that after the video of the assault on Ian Tomlinson was released, that the police could not have apologized, for what appeared, from the evidence currently available that something appears to have gone wrong.
Whether the police officer is found guilty of murder or manslaughter is a seperate issue.
It is without doubt wrong that Mr. Tomlinson was pushed to the ground and the police should be apologizing for that.
Instead we have the police suggesting that Mr. Tomlinson had a pre-existing heart condition.That has nothing to do with what is clearly an assault on a man walking away from police lines.
IPCC
If you take a closer look at the IPCC, press releases, it is very clear that the many Police Officers and Police Departments are not fit for purpose. The mistakes are not due to politicisation, they are due to incompetence and in some cases corruption.
While some of these investigations are still ongoing, it is evident that there are a plethora of official complaints made against the police, this list is just for the first 9 days of April and excludes the numerous statements about the investigation into Ian Tomlinson
9 April 2009
Independent investigation into death of Marcus Cottoy
IPCC investigators are checking CCTV, interviewing witnesses, including custody staff, and examining custody records.
IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin said: “The death of a young man in these kind of circumstances can raise a range of concerns and it is important that Marcus’ family and the local community can feel confident that an independent investigation will take place.
9 April 2009
IPCC discloses findings from investigation into death of Martin McCann
The IPCC’s investigation concluded:
•There is evidence that Mr McCann requested that he be searched in the police vehicle. However, it was still inappropriate for the officer to carry out a strip search of Mr McCann in the rear of a police vehicle. This was a breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice;
•Although it is accepted the two officers were responding to a dynamic situation when they arrived at Pole Street it was a wrong to have left Mr McCann alone in the rear of the police van even for a short period of time;
•The two officers acted appropriately in dealing with Mr McCann once he became unwell.
As a result of these findings it has been agreed that both officers will receive formal advice in relation to their actions.
“Although the officers breached policies in terms of the search and leaving Mr McCann alone in the van for a brief period, these failings cannot be used to hold them accountable for Mr McCann’s death. Once Mr McCann’s became unwell the officers acted quickly. Unfortunately it was already too late to save him.”
9 April 2009
IPCC to investigate the complaints made by Victor Frederick
Mr Frederick was returning to his home at around 9.30pm on 17 February 2009 when he was confronted with armed police officers. He was arrested under suspicion of possessing materials likely to be used for making explosives and was held in custody for 24 hours.
IPCC Commissioner for Wales Tom Davies said: “I have decided that the issues raised by Mr Frederick through his MP and AM should be fully investigated.
“This investigation will be timely and thorough and will be carried out by the professional standards department at South Wales Police under the direction and control of the IPCC.”
8 April 2009
IPCC to manage investigation about complaints into Cleveland murder investigation
The Independent Police Complaints Commission is managing an investigation into complaints about how Cleveland Police investigated the death of two-year-old Kyle Fisher.
Kyle died on 23 July 2004 and his babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth was charged and then convicted of his murder. In April 2008 the conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal and a second trial took place in December 2008 which resulted in Ms Holdsworth being acquitted.
7 April 2009
IPCC statement in response to CPS decision re death of Pc Ian Terry
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has noted today’s decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to charge Greater Manchester Police or any individual officers with criminal offences in relation to the fatal shooting of Pc Ian Terry.
The Greater Manchester Police officer died during a firearms training exercise on 9 June 2008.
The IPCC submitted its file of evidence to the CPS and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for consideration in December 2008. A decision from the HSE is awaited.
It would be inappropriate for the IPCC to comment any further at this stage.
7 April 2009
IPCC discloses finding of investigation into death of Amarjit Singh Chaudhri
• The Call Handler, who took the call at 4.00pm on Friday 28 March 2008, did not deal appropriately with the incident. He did not obtain adequate information when categorising the emergency call and his failure to obtain an accurate description of Mr Chaudhri, his precise location, and his medical condition, subsequently affected the outcome of the incident. It influenced the decisions made by the Controller, and indirectly the CCTV operator.
• The Controller did not deal appropriately with the incident on Friday 28 March 2008. His decision to cancel the police response unit based on limited information, exacerbated the outcome of the incident and resulted in a failure to check the location.
Following the investigation, it has been determined that the Call Handler and the Controller who dealt with the first emergency have received a detailed debrief to outline the areas where their individual performance fell short of the standards expected. They were also given a detailed development plan to enhance their skills and will be subject to on-going assessment by their line managers.
03 April 2009
IPCC discloses findings from managed investigation into death of Malcolm Bulman
The possibility exists that either the accident in the cell caused the fatal injury, or that accident exacerbated an existing injury or that he had sustained an injury prior to his arrest, possibly from a fall on the staircase.
It is clear that the head injury was not discovered until Mr Bulman underwent a detailed examination at hospital.
The investigation did find that there were some failings in the general care given to Mr Bulman while he was in custody. In particular Mr Bulman was left in wet trousers and was given a dirty blanket. These were supplementary issues, but ones that have been reported back to South Yorkshire Police and addressed.
Nicholas Long, IPCC Commissioner for Yorkshire and Humberside, said: “Mr Bulman had a history of drink related problems and on this particular day he was taken into custody for his own welfare. The police officer dealing with him had no option other than to take him into custody – there was nowhere else for him to go.
“It continues to be a matter of concern for me that police cells are regarded as a ‘place of safety’ for people who are drunk and incapable, when perhaps some form of medical treatment may be more appropriate. It is unfair for the police service to be left to deal with these kinds of situations. It is however impossible to say whether, even if some form of medical treatment for Mr Bulman’s alcohol problem had been available, it would have spotted any other injury.
Mr Long added: “Once Mr Bulman’s condition deteriorated prompt medical attention was sought, but by that stage it is apparent it was already too late for his life to be saved. We will never know with certainty whether the fatal head injury was caused before he was taken into custody or during his stay in custody.
1 April 2009
IPCC investigation update: PC Clark charged with conspiracy to blackmail
The Independent Police Complaints Commission can confirm that Police Constable Raymond Clark from South Wales Police was arrested by Gwent Police and charged with Conspiracy to Blackmail on 18 February 2009 and released from custody on conditional bail on 19 March by Newport Crown Court.
PC Clark has been suspended from duty by South Wales Police.
The IPCC is managing the misconduct investigation being conducted by the professional standards department at South Wales Police. This will also look at the reasons why confirmation of the identification of PC Clark as a serving police officer in South Wales was not confirmed at an earlier stage in the inquiry.
Gwent Police are conducting an on-going criminal investigation and the IPCC will not at this stage issue further information because of the possibility of prejudicing that investigation and the live criminal proceedings against PC Clark.
The police on the beat - photo Max Nash
The police have also taken a strange attitude to implementing laws, twisting them to their own satisfaction.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act is often used as a reason to arrest someone, with the statement that it is an offence under section 5 to swear in a public place, but many of these arrests are quite simply lazy policing.
The Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(1) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(2) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(3) The conduct was reasonable.
.
The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2009
We now have the police are being now heard to claim that under section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which came in to force on 19th February 2009, it is an offence to photograph a police officer.
This is absolutely un-true there is no blanket ban on taking photographs of police officers.
The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 introduced some changes in the law relating to the eliciting, publishing or communicating information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Section 76 of the 2008 Act makes “Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc” an offence. The section is effectively an amendment to s 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Under the newly introduced s 58A to the 2000 Act, a person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism,
or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
Under s58A (2) “it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.”
To establish this defence [under s58A], the defendant needs only to claim to have a reasonable excuse and it is then for the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no such excuse. Further, the DPP must authorise prosecutions under Section 58A. Its decision will take account of the possibility of the person having a reasonable excuse for his or her actions. Therefore, safeguards are in place. It is clear that this is not information that people would normally have, but that, by putting it around, they would put someone at risk.
Tony McNulty confirmed this approach in answer to a Parliamentary Question, when he indicated that:
Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rules or statute.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights Report:
In March 2009, the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a report entitled Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest.
The report played down the legal concerns involved, but warned of a potential“chilling effect” on journalists and protestors and suggested that guidance should be issued to the police about the scope of the offence. The report commented on the issue of photographing the police in the following terms:
Concerns have recently been expressed in the media that a new provision in the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 makes it a criminal offence to take and publish a photograph of a police officer. Section 76 of the 2008 Act makes it an offence to elicit or attempt to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a constable “which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.”
As the Explanatory Notes to the Counter Terrorism Bill correctly stated, the new offence will only be committed where the information in question is “such as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism, and must be of a kind that was likely to provide practical assistant to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.” That is the effect of a decision of the Court of Appeal in a case in 2008 interpreting the same statutory language in the separate terrorism offence of possessing a document or record containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror.
We therefore do not share the concerns expressed in the media that the new offence criminalises taking photographs of the police. However, we do regard as significant the fact that this is being widely reported as a matter of concern to journalists.
Legal uncertainty about the reach of criminal offences can have a chilling effect on the activities of journalists and protestors. We therefore recommend that, to eliminate any scope for doubt about the scope of the new offence in section76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, guidance be issued to the police about the scope of the offence in light of the decision of the Court of Appeal, and specifically addressing concerns about its improper use to prevent photographing or filming police.
The NUJ wrote to the Home Secretary expressing concern at police surveillance of journalists and subsequently had a meeting with the Minister, Vernon Coaker MP.
Following the meeting, the ACPO/media guidelines were revised and the Minister wrote to the NUJ stating:
We have addressed this directly in the revised guidance making it clear that the Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images. The guidance also makes it clear that film and memory cards may be seized as part of a search but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film.
If Johnston believes the Police are being politicised, then the police need to stand up and be counted. Similarly they need to stop using laws incorrectly and ensure the police officers employed are not only trained, but suited for the role.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6ec21324-e755-4901-9d20-85b1dd692b41)
Whoops, is that a security document?
News update, Quick has now resigned his post as head of counter terrorism. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
This is a photograph of the most senior police officer responsible for counter terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick.
Bob Quick head of anti terrorism for the Police
The irony being he was arriving to attend a meeting about Police reform. Why he felt the need to bring this document with him remains an issue only he can understand, maybe he feels the need to bang his chest? Perhaps we should look at top agenda item for the meeting on Police reform. Replace egotistical police officers with sensible people.
As a result of this mans cock up, 12 people were prematurely arrested in invasions by police officers across the North West of England.
The Government don’t really mind either way, as having forced through anti-terrorist legislation they are free to do as they please, even declaring the failure of Icelandic Banks to be an act of terrorism under the loosely drafted legislation. These 12 people fingered by a Police force who are suspected of numerous murders, can be held without charge for far too long.
As a citizen of the UK, I am somewhat perturbed. The head of the ‘anti-terrorism’ drive is of such a frame of mind that he thinks wandering about with these documents in open view is ‘secure’.
Take this in context, that this same man who is responsible for the investigation into Home Office leaks. This is the same Bob Quick, who was forced to retract statements that the Conservative Party were trying to scupper his investigation into leaks to Damian Green, the Conservative spokesman on immigration.
Whilst I find it personally galling to defend politicians, how on earth can someone who wanders around with documents marked secret in full view, be the same person expected to be capable of investigating leaks by the Home Office. That aside from the fact that these so called ‘leaks’ are in the interest of the British Public. How can this man Quick, be responsible for investigating leaks, when he takes his leaks out to be photographed?
Quick is another example of the way this Country is being overrun with a dictatorship mentality, which suits the Labour Party so comfortably. He was the man who authorised a search of the offices of Damien Green in the Palace of Westminster without a warrant.
Does Jacqui Smith expose her cleavage to save her husband having to bill porn films to the tax payer??
Does she get her kicks away from home, while hubby watches porn I wonder? Just a question.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=79e4d0d9-97a2-4a17-b03c-9ec5d3868816)
Learning skills council overspend
In the UK there are estimated to be 1162 Quango’s with an annual combined budget of £64 billion, with approximately 700,000 bureaucrats employed.
In 2003, the Government announced they would print the full list of Quango’s, but 6 years later, that list is still yet to be seen.
The Learning and skills council employs 3,700 staff and has an annual budget of over £10 billion.
In July 2003, the Select Committee on Public Administration found that only one in six Quango’s run by central government were subject to regulation. Very significantly, appointments to most local Quango’s are not regulated at all, other than those to NHS bodies, and these tend to be filled by word of mouth within business, political and other networks.
Gordon Brown promised a ‘…bonfire of the Quango’s…’ before Labour came to power, claiming that they were ‘..often government in secret, free from full public scrutiny…’. But 13 out of 16 Whitehall departments failed to reduce their spending on Quango’s and seven departments have created new ones, with more in the pipeline.
Let’s look specifically at why the Learning Skills Council is a good example of why Quango’s are rotten.
According to Sir Andrew Foster’s government-commissioned review:
LSC were responsible for running the Building Colleges for the Future programme. The LSC had approved £2.5billion of capital projects proposed by further education colleges, but then deferred final approval after realising it did not have the money for the projects.
As a result of the initial approval, some of the Colleges started to spend the money on their projects, with buildings being gutted or demolished prior to the LSC announcing their ‘mistake’. In total 144 colleges have been affected by this abject failure. As a further damning indictment, it has been suggested that these problems were known as long ago as February 2008, yet the LSC continued to approve projects.
John Denham Minister -the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
The Government’s decision to abolish the LSC from next year, and to separate the Department for Education into two departments covering schools and universities, is partly to blame according to Foster, who added:
‘Preoccupation with organisational change distracted attention from core ongoing business…people took their eyes off the ball…’
Local LSC teams actively solicited projects from colleges and worked with college principals to turn more proposals into wholesale upgrading.
Mark Hayson former CEO of the LSC
The TLA culture of Qango’s is quite overwhelming. The LSC BCF is expected to be transferred to the PSC BSF.
In real language this means:
In a wonderful Governmental twist the colleges affected by the failed BCF (Building Colleges for the future programme) could find themselves being transferred to yet another Quango: the Partnership for Schools, who run another building project budget called, Building Schools for the Future.
In another LSC failure
The LSC has also failed to calculate the numbers of students moving in to six forms colleges, which has led to chronic underfunding.
Ed Balls - The Department for Children, Schools and Families Minister
Jim Knight Schools Minister
The LSC’s projections were that the numbers of 16 to 18 year olds in colleges in England (786,000) would be the same next year as this, and the numbers staying on in sixth forms would fall from 383,000 to 372,000.
A letter sent out by the LSC at the beginning of March had appeared to say that schools would be funded in line with their predicted rise in student numbers for next year. In a statement, the LSC said: ‘..It is clear that our letter of March 2 to schools has caused them confusion and concern, for which we apologise….’
We have Government departments making policy decisions and failing to understand the ramifications and Quango’s, for which there is no democratic accountability, wasting billions of pounds of money. Yet no Government Minister is going to take responsibility for the farrago of capital projects or under funding of sixth for colleges and schools.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0e4b1a58-424b-4525-af26-a34c164832bd)
Inside the murky house of Aviva
Aviva PLC, who describe their strategy as:
‘….Strategy
Our purpose is to bring prosperity and peace of mind to our customers.
We will do this by realising our vision: One Aviva, twice the value.
By working together across our businesses, we will optimise our performance in the global marketplace and maximise the value we can generate for all our stakeholders….’
Have a strange way of reflecting this ‘peace of mind’.
While many people around the world decry the bonus culture and perceived greed of the City Bonus culture. Aviva, seem to feel they are all too far above this, for it to matter.
Andrew Moss CEO Aviva
Andrew Moss Chief Executive Officer of Aviva saw the business plunge in to the red last year:
Moss has led this company whilst, Aviva shares have fallen by 60% in the past year, profits for 2008 and has managed to run the business at a loss. The business has dropped from pre-tax profits of £1.8 billion to losses of £2.4 billion. Anyone of a reasonable nature would see this as a catastrophic failure. £2.4 billion loss. However not dear old Andrew Moss and the Board of Aviva, who actually see this as a good thing and feel that the man deserves not only a pay rise, but also a bonus.
To his credit he is talking of foregoing his pay rise, however the bonus for last year was: £752,000, one-third in cash and two-thirds in shares. He also got £463,000 in Aviva’s long-term savings scheme.
He portrays this failure as some sort of marvellous stamp of approval on his track record and gleefully announces dividends will not be cut
“In a tumultuous year, our underlying business has shown great resilience … Operating profits are up and we have maintained our dividend. Bottom line earnings have been affected by investment markets, which have predictably created significant unrealized losses during the year.”
He should be sacked not rewarded.
While I take a look at Aviva, it would be interesting to get a perspective on this urgently needed operating business name change from Norwich Union, to Aviva. The exact costs of this rebrand are not yet fully disclosed, but are known to run in to hundreds of millions of pounds.
Supposedly this is all about cost efficiency and more importantly to quote the strategic aim of the business ‘we will optimise our performance in the global marketplace and maximise the value we can generate for all our stakeholders’
Andrew Moss in 2008 had this to say of the rebranding: ‘…did not expect the name change to hit sales….’
Well excuse me for being a bit thick here. Not expecting the name change to hit sales is hardly a compelling business rationale to spend hundreds of millions of pounds. He didn’t say, this will increase sales, or even this will ensure maintaining market share, no he said quite clearly he didn’t expect the name change to hit sales.
So how is the rebranding being paid for?
According to the FAQ page on the Aviva website about the name change:
Q. Will my premium go up to pay for this?
No
Q. How much will this cost?
The cost of rebranding will be more than outweighed by the cost-efficiencies achieved by supporting one brand rather than several.
A bland response, but one to work with, but it does somewhat counter a comment Moss made in 2008 when he announced the rebranding programme: Although he declined to comment on the cost of the rebrand he did say the group was ready to make a ‘significant investment’, an interesting juxtaposition.
Moss acknowledges this rebrand will require a ‘significant investment’ and hedges on the question of future sales by saying it shouldn’t have a negative impact. So why did Aviva go for the name change?
Amanda MacKenzie Group Marketing Director Aviva
Step forward Amanda Mackenzie Aviva Group Marketing Director, who joined the group in 2008. Was the rebrand created to entice her from Centrica?
Mackenzie is well known for her rebrands of corporates and she specializes in expensive changes. She worked at BT when it changed its logo from a piper to a globe and helped Mars when it changed Marathon to Snickers and Opal Fruits to Starburst.
Amazingly enough, even she doesn’t really believe in this rebrand stating:
‘…We have got to be open-minded enough to say: Well, maybe we will keep a little bit of the comfort blanket of the old brand for a little bit longer, if people need it…’
We have the bizarre situation that the CEO is not sure if sales will drop, but knows this is going to cost a great deal of money and a Marketing Director who really doesn’t think it is a great idea, as she acknowledges the old brand names need to be kept round a little longer.
Then to compound it further, the ‘global name’ is not really a good idea after all, as the Aviva FAQ reminds readers:
Q. Are there any businesses in the Aviva group which will not move to the global brand?
- RAC
- Delta Lloyd
- Navigator
You can sort of run with the excuse that the RAC is vehicle breakdown and not insurance related, sort of.
You can’t run with Delta Lloyd who are clearly involved in the insurance business, based in Holland.
Navigator is again clearly an insurance business. If you take a look at their Australian website, it appears that Navigator Australia haven’t been told they are not part of the rebranding programme, the Singapore website looks as confused.
What has been the outcome of the rebrand so far?
Have staff fared well? 1,100 job cuts in the UK announced so far have not been well received. The job cuts may well be unrelated to the rebrand, but do focus the mind on how much the rebrand is costing.
Have policy holders fared well? The NULAP pension investors found there was no annual bonus on their with profits investments.
Have shareholders fared well? Despite massive losses, the dividend has been held.
Have directors fared well? Moss received a handsome bonus.
There has been no sound business case made for this rebrand, with the Championing Directors having public doubts.
Yet, despite all this, the Directors of Aviva, feel they have done sufficiently well in managing a loss of £2.4 billion, to award themselves bonuses.
Aviva PLC and Andrew Moss in particular is a fine example of moral turpitude in the UK. This man should resign as he has turned a profitable business into a loss maker. He wants the credit if it goes well; he needs to accept responsibility now that he has been seen to fail to catastrophically.
What level of loss does the Aviva Board deem unacceptable? An RBS scale failure?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0bec5d1d-c855-405d-9090-6f8b0b64c379)
Aviva name change advertising
Spending money to change the Brand name: Does it justify laying off staff?
