A lot has been said and written about the policing of the G20 summit in London.
Personally I think that the policing went reasonably well, though obviously there are several areas of concern, not the least of which is the apparent assault of Ian Tomlinson and his subsequent, possibly linked death.
One such area of concern is the incident involving Nicola Fisher, who, if you have seen the footage, was slapped across the face and then hit across the legs with a baton, according to her, twice. It has to be said there is no apparent lawful reason for this action by the police officer and therefore the IPCC are investigating.
What made me laugh was laugh though was how Nicola Fisher described the incident as like being ¨whipped by the Taliban¨. Ridiculous. Anyone fancy contributing to the cost of a plane ticket to the tribal region of Pakistan so she can find out what being whipped by the Taliban is actually like.
The BBC has this.
Showing posts with label Law and Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law and Order. Show all posts
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Bob Quick´s resignation
I heard Bob Quick resigned this morning, announced by Boris Johnson.
Bob´s big problem of course was that no one could trust him with important information any more.
Daft, but there you go. John Reid thought he had no choice either. I agree.
David Blunkett of course wants to pass a law saying that if some one is so careless and useless that they allow sensitive information to be seen, it should be an offence to photograph it, but then David Blunkett is as daft as a brush. This sort of breach of security on the way to Downing street has only happened twice since the invention of photography*, so clearly there is no need for a law, you just rid yourself of the careless.
The BBC has this.
*Both on Gordon Brown´s watch mind!
Bob´s big problem of course was that no one could trust him with important information any more.
Daft, but there you go. John Reid thought he had no choice either. I agree.
David Blunkett of course wants to pass a law saying that if some one is so careless and useless that they allow sensitive information to be seen, it should be an offence to photograph it, but then David Blunkett is as daft as a brush. This sort of breach of security on the way to Downing street has only happened twice since the invention of photography*, so clearly there is no need for a law, you just rid yourself of the careless.
The BBC has this.
*Both on Gordon Brown´s watch mind!
Bob Quick´s blunder
Police in Manchester, Liverpool and other parts of the north west have, it appears, carried out a successful operation to arrest a group of people suspected of terrorist offences.
There were not going to do it today, of course, they were still gathering evidence, but then the accident prone Bob Quick decided to brief Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith on the investigation. Alas he did not keep all his documents in a file so walked down Downing street briefing the world.
It has to be said serious questions were already being asked about Bob Quick, and it does not help his cause that he has damaged a major anti terror raid by rank carelessness. We are all human, but that carelessness may still cost lives.
The BBC has this.
There were not going to do it today, of course, they were still gathering evidence, but then the accident prone Bob Quick decided to brief Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith on the investigation. Alas he did not keep all his documents in a file so walked down Downing street briefing the world.
It has to be said serious questions were already being asked about Bob Quick, and it does not help his cause that he has damaged a major anti terror raid by rank carelessness. We are all human, but that carelessness may still cost lives.
The BBC has this.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The sad death of Ian Tomlinson
I have to say that I was saddened by the death of Ian Tomlinson when I heard about it. At the time I thought nothing more of it. After all, he died of ¨natural causes¨.
However I am deeply disturbed by the footage shown. He appears to be walking around posing no threat to anyone trying to get home on a bad day in London when he was assaulted for no obvious reason by some one in a uniform.
Whilst it is not possible for me to say whether the assault and heart attack are linked, heart attacks can be brought on by difficult circumstances.
That officer has now come forward, presumably because he can be pinpointed. It does him no credit that he did not come forward earlier.
The police do also need to rid themselves of people who break the law and give them all a bad name.
The state has to have a monopoly on violence, or else there is anarchy, but that violence must be used lawfully. I have to say that it does not appear to have been so in this case.
The BBC has this.
However I am deeply disturbed by the footage shown. He appears to be walking around posing no threat to anyone trying to get home on a bad day in London when he was assaulted for no obvious reason by some one in a uniform.
Whilst it is not possible for me to say whether the assault and heart attack are linked, heart attacks can be brought on by difficult circumstances.
That officer has now come forward, presumably because he can be pinpointed. It does him no credit that he did not come forward earlier.
The police do also need to rid themselves of people who break the law and give them all a bad name.
The state has to have a monopoly on violence, or else there is anarchy, but that violence must be used lawfully. I have to say that it does not appear to have been so in this case.
The BBC has this.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Bob Quick's retraction should draw a line under the affair
As Iain Dale says here, Bob Quick's retraction and apology should draw a line under the tragic affair of his somewhat odd outburst.
He also clearly has many enemies elsewhere, so if any one does want to get at him, they need to join a queue it seems.
It does seem odd though that his wife has the business dealings that she does. A police officer needs to be totally impartial. If you lived in his police area and had an accident with one of her chauffeur driven cars could you be confident of an impartial investigation?
The BBC also has this.
He also clearly has many enemies elsewhere, so if any one does want to get at him, they need to join a queue it seems.
It does seem odd though that his wife has the business dealings that she does. A police officer needs to be totally impartial. If you lived in his police area and had an accident with one of her chauffeur driven cars could you be confident of an impartial investigation?
The BBC also has this.
Bob Quick has clearly lost the plot!
I have been watching this story unravel over the day. It is clear to me that the man has lost the plot.
The Mail on Sunday did some digging and found that Bob's wife Judith ran a chauffeur service from their family home using a number of vintage cars.
If you read the article you get the clear impression that someone in the met gave the story out but that did not stop the soon to be in civy street, Mr Quick from blaming the Conservative party.
In part he has eaten his words, but clearly he is not a man you would want in an under pressure position, like er.. the head of anti terrorism.
The BBC also has this.
The Mail on Sunday did some digging and found that Bob's wife Judith ran a chauffeur service from their family home using a number of vintage cars.
If you read the article you get the clear impression that someone in the met gave the story out but that did not stop the soon to be in civy street, Mr Quick from blaming the Conservative party.
In part he has eaten his words, but clearly he is not a man you would want in an under pressure position, like er.. the head of anti terrorism.
The BBC also has this.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Government admits defeat on 42 days?
The government admits defeat on 42 days, but wants to keep a bill in its back pocket to bring out at a moments notice to blackmail parliament into passing it at a moments notice.
You just could not make it up.
As a previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Cheerful Charlie Falconer has pointed out, its not needed because if the prosecuting authorities have a reasonable belief that the evidence will become available, they can charge someone much earlier then gather the evidence. The bill as it now stands includes provisions for post charge questioning as well.
So where is the problem?
This is obviously just political posturing, and trying to look hard.
The BBC has this.
You just could not make it up.
As a previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Cheerful Charlie Falconer has pointed out, its not needed because if the prosecuting authorities have a reasonable belief that the evidence will become available, they can charge someone much earlier then gather the evidence. The bill as it now stands includes provisions for post charge questioning as well.
So where is the problem?
This is obviously just political posturing, and trying to look hard.
The BBC has this.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Sir Ian Blair resigns!
My position is clear. Sir Ian Blair should not have resigned. That is a tragic error.
Left leaning twits have accused the Conservative party of making things party political. This is tosh.
Sir Ian Blair should have been sacked, long ago for dragging his office into politics, and indeed so should have this government, for dragging the police into politics especially over various bits of anti terrorism legislation.
The fascinating thing was watching Chris Huhne's comments. he basically said that if Blair did not have the confidence of London's mayor, he should go. The reason for this approach is obvious. It distances the Liberal Democrats from a direct link to the ousting of a pratt, whilst supporting it, because Liberal Democrats have also been irritated by Ian Blair dragging his office into politics.
So when New Labour freaks (and anyone who is still new Labour is a freak) shout about us Conservatives dragging the police into politics, perhaps they might consider how they have dragged them in first.
For my first article on why he should go see here.
Left leaning twits have accused the Conservative party of making things party political. This is tosh.
Sir Ian Blair should have been sacked, long ago for dragging his office into politics, and indeed so should have this government, for dragging the police into politics especially over various bits of anti terrorism legislation.
The fascinating thing was watching Chris Huhne's comments. he basically said that if Blair did not have the confidence of London's mayor, he should go. The reason for this approach is obvious. It distances the Liberal Democrats from a direct link to the ousting of a pratt, whilst supporting it, because Liberal Democrats have also been irritated by Ian Blair dragging his office into politics.
So when New Labour freaks (and anyone who is still new Labour is a freak) shout about us Conservatives dragging the police into politics, perhaps they might consider how they have dragged them in first.
For my first article on why he should go see here.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
David Davis wins 42 day debate!
On the eve of the by election in Haltemprice and Howden, David Davis has clearly won the debate which Labour through sheer cowardice refused to have.
In an ICM poll conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust now 61% of people are against holding people for longer than 28 days without charge. Of those who support 42 detention without charge, when told that is equivalent to a jail term for something like burglary 36% then change their minds.
The survey also is a blow to people who want an ever expanding DNA database with 75% thinking that innocent people should bot be on the database permanently.
In that sense David Davis has clearly won the debate. It is just a shame that the BBC refuse to cover it.
Iain Dale has this, whilst the press release is here and the full data here.
In an ICM poll conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust now 61% of people are against holding people for longer than 28 days without charge. Of those who support 42 detention without charge, when told that is equivalent to a jail term for something like burglary 36% then change their minds.
The survey also is a blow to people who want an ever expanding DNA database with 75% thinking that innocent people should bot be on the database permanently.
In that sense David Davis has clearly won the debate. It is just a shame that the BBC refuse to cover it.
Iain Dale has this, whilst the press release is here and the full data here.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The World has gone mad!
The man who is now in custody, suspected of murdering Gabriel Ferez and Laurent Bonomo tried to give himself up at Lewisham police station. He was told to wait at the back of the queue.
Amazing.
Needless to say that the police who are investigating the savage murder were none too pleased.
The Sun has this, Iain Dale has this, and the BBC has this.
Amazing.
Needless to say that the police who are investigating the savage murder were none too pleased.
The Sun has this, Iain Dale has this, and the BBC has this.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Criminal Justice, a bizarre twist
So there we have it, Ben Coulter didn't do it, and had the police investigated properly perhaps they would have found that out.
Great series.
Great series.
Criminal Justice, a very compelling drama!
Criminal Justice is a very compelling drama. In fact I think it is fantastic.
We do not yet know the result but what we have seen is the way the investigation works and the way prisons work.
We already know the main character Ben Coulter did not murder Melanie. What we also know is that he looks guilty as sin by forensic evidence and the fact he ran away.
We also know how partial "expert" witnesses can be.
This is one of the most important dramas to be aired on the BBC since things like Cathy come home and justifies their licence fee.
The only problem is that no one else I know is watching it, which in my view is criminal.
We do not yet know the result but what we have seen is the way the investigation works and the way prisons work.
We already know the main character Ben Coulter did not murder Melanie. What we also know is that he looks guilty as sin by forensic evidence and the fact he ran away.
We also know how partial "expert" witnesses can be.
This is one of the most important dramas to be aired on the BBC since things like Cathy come home and justifies their licence fee.
The only problem is that no one else I know is watching it, which in my view is criminal.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Criminal Justice
First of all, after two episodes, I have to say fantastic.
Has it changed my mind about anything?
No!
Do I hope it has changed yours?
Yes!
The plot is interesting (if inaccurate in some ways) in that the lead character arrives at his predicament in a very unusual way. Despite the fact that the viewer knows it to be true, if you told that story down the pub, you would be laughed at. That does not mean that it could not be true, weirder things have happened to me (though not involving sex), and that he can't remember the murder so does not know if he did it.
Now, moving on:
We have the situation where the police seem to take the line of least resistance. Crucially the lead investigator has doubts but not the man power to investigate what appears to be an open and shut case.
We have lawyers who encourage the defendant to be silent, and who weigh up the odds on the basis of odds alone.
The truth seems to be a lost irrelevance.
Then the other thing is prison.
I am all in favour of locking up criminals. I am even in favour of remand subject to many caveats.
What I am clear on is that prison does not work. It is entirely dysfunctional and needs urgent fixing.
For a start it needs to return to the Victorian ideal of a prisoner to a cell. Secondly shower or toilet facilities can not and should not be shared. Anything else allows the rule of the bully and prevents rehabilitation.
More thoughts will appear as the series goes on.
The BBC has this.
Has it changed my mind about anything?
No!
Do I hope it has changed yours?
Yes!
The plot is interesting (if inaccurate in some ways) in that the lead character arrives at his predicament in a very unusual way. Despite the fact that the viewer knows it to be true, if you told that story down the pub, you would be laughed at. That does not mean that it could not be true, weirder things have happened to me (though not involving sex), and that he can't remember the murder so does not know if he did it.
Now, moving on:
We have the situation where the police seem to take the line of least resistance. Crucially the lead investigator has doubts but not the man power to investigate what appears to be an open and shut case.
We have lawyers who encourage the defendant to be silent, and who weigh up the odds on the basis of odds alone.
The truth seems to be a lost irrelevance.
Then the other thing is prison.
I am all in favour of locking up criminals. I am even in favour of remand subject to many caveats.
What I am clear on is that prison does not work. It is entirely dysfunctional and needs urgent fixing.
For a start it needs to return to the Victorian ideal of a prisoner to a cell. Secondly shower or toilet facilities can not and should not be shared. Anything else allows the rule of the bully and prevents rehabilitation.
More thoughts will appear as the series goes on.
The BBC has this.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Law Lords and Anonymous witnesses
The Law Lords have, in a well argued judgement ruled that Ian Davis had not received a fair trial because there was too much anonymous witness evidence. (See the BBC here)
The Police have expressed great concern about the ruling because they have many cases which rely on anonymous witness evidence.
So why the problem?
Obviously criminals, particularly those who have committed serious crimes such as murder have no respect for other peoples lives, and will not think twice about intimidating witnesses. There friends, family or gang members may do the actual intimidation so the fact that the accused is locked up is not enough.
However the right to a fair trial is a common law right, now in the Human Rights act as is the right to see and confront your accuser. This is vital to a fair trial.
Imagine the situation where you (and yes, I do mean YOU) are accused of a crime, say murder, and the only evidence against you is that of 2 anonymous witnesses. Neither you nor your defence team know who they are. You do not know what if any axes they have to grind against you.
Is there a precedent for anonymous witnesses? Yes, though not a happy one, the Spanish inquisition used them were on the list of , though I have heard that you had to have 3 accusers and got to write down a list of enemies. If your enemiesaccusers they were struck off.
If you think about it having anonymous witnesses is a very bad thing. Someone who feels you have done them down, or who has some axe to grind could be a witness against you, and you would never know.
So what is the real problem here? What is the ill we seek to cure?
It is fear. Remove the fear and then there is no need to have anonymous witnesses.
To remove the fear of witnesses we need to do two things. Firstly there needs to be a fully funded witness protection program, secondly there needs to be a specialist unit to investigate witness intimidation of any sort. We need to make sure that anyone who intimidates a witness serves a long prison sentence, say 10 years as a minimum, or longer if the crime that the intimidation is over has a longer sentence.
If people can't get away with witness intimidation they will stop doing it.
The BBC also has this article by Professor Jon Silverman, of the University of Bedfordshire.
The Police have expressed great concern about the ruling because they have many cases which rely on anonymous witness evidence.
So why the problem?
Obviously criminals, particularly those who have committed serious crimes such as murder have no respect for other peoples lives, and will not think twice about intimidating witnesses. There friends, family or gang members may do the actual intimidation so the fact that the accused is locked up is not enough.
However the right to a fair trial is a common law right, now in the Human Rights act as is the right to see and confront your accuser. This is vital to a fair trial.
Imagine the situation where you (and yes, I do mean YOU) are accused of a crime, say murder, and the only evidence against you is that of 2 anonymous witnesses. Neither you nor your defence team know who they are. You do not know what if any axes they have to grind against you.
Is there a precedent for anonymous witnesses? Yes, though not a happy one, the Spanish inquisition used them were on the list of , though I have heard that you had to have 3 accusers and got to write down a list of enemies. If your enemiesaccusers they were struck off.
If you think about it having anonymous witnesses is a very bad thing. Someone who feels you have done them down, or who has some axe to grind could be a witness against you, and you would never know.
So what is the real problem here? What is the ill we seek to cure?
It is fear. Remove the fear and then there is no need to have anonymous witnesses.
To remove the fear of witnesses we need to do two things. Firstly there needs to be a fully funded witness protection program, secondly there needs to be a specialist unit to investigate witness intimidation of any sort. We need to make sure that anyone who intimidates a witness serves a long prison sentence, say 10 years as a minimum, or longer if the crime that the intimidation is over has a longer sentence.
If people can't get away with witness intimidation they will stop doing it.
The BBC also has this article by Professor Jon Silverman, of the University of Bedfordshire.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Murdoch bottles it! He will not take on David Davis!
According to this article on the Spectator Coffee house blog Rupert Murdoch has bottled the fight as well. As noted earlier the Sun seems to be turning.
Apparently whilst Rupert Murdoch does not like David Cameron, he is fairly sure that Gordon Brown will lose the next general election.
So Gordon Brown does not have the courage of Rupert Murdoch's convictions and neither does Rupert! Fantastic.
Apparently whilst Rupert Murdoch does not like David Cameron, he is fairly sure that Gordon Brown will lose the next general election.
So Gordon Brown does not have the courage of Rupert Murdoch's convictions and neither does Rupert! Fantastic.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Zimbabwe Judge cites Habeas Corpus
The deputy leader of the MDC, Tendai Biti was arrested at Harare airport on Thursday, and has been held without access to his lawyers since.
Now a high court judge in Harare has demanded that Tendai Biti be brought before him and that the police explain why he is being held.
This is the principle of Habeas Corpus that started with Magna Carta. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it? Bit of a shame that this government is trying to get rid of it though.
The BBC has this.
Now a high court judge in Harare has demanded that Tendai Biti be brought before him and that the police explain why he is being held.
This is the principle of Habeas Corpus that started with Magna Carta. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it? Bit of a shame that this government is trying to get rid of it though.
The BBC has this.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The gut wrenchingly sad case of Kevin Tripp.
Today has been an emotional day for me.
I have been incandescent with rage over the current terrorism bill, both on the issue of secret inquests and 42 days. This deeply concerns me at the deepest level.
However i was smacked straight in the gut by the pointless murder of Kevin Tripp, aged 57.
It seems from reports that some 18 or 19 year old "yob" had insulted the other half of Tony Virsami so when she, Antoinette Richardson, pointed someone out in a queue he went and punched Kevin Tripp to the ground. he has now died.
There is now a 5 year old boy, who will have been waiting with much anticipation for his daddy to come home, and he will no longer. This young boy will never see his dad again.
I know how much my dad meant to me, and today I have shed many a tear for that 5 year old boy. I will pray for him.
The BBC has this.
I have been incandescent with rage over the current terrorism bill, both on the issue of secret inquests and 42 days. This deeply concerns me at the deepest level.
However i was smacked straight in the gut by the pointless murder of Kevin Tripp, aged 57.
It seems from reports that some 18 or 19 year old "yob" had insulted the other half of Tony Virsami so when she, Antoinette Richardson, pointed someone out in a queue he went and punched Kevin Tripp to the ground. he has now died.
There is now a 5 year old boy, who will have been waiting with much anticipation for his daddy to come home, and he will no longer. This young boy will never see his dad again.
I know how much my dad meant to me, and today I have shed many a tear for that 5 year old boy. I will pray for him.
The BBC has this.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Police should harass young thugs says Home Secretary
I have to say I despair when I read of things like this in the Guardian and this on the BBC.
Jacqui Smith, the alleged Home Secretary has made a speech to an audience who work in the field of anti social behaviour.
It seems she wants the police to harass young thugs. This seems reminiscent of David Blunkett's threat to turn up outside a fireman's house who had been accused of football hooliganism in Portugal.
Harassment is a crime, made so by the Protection from Harassment act 1997. Presumably therefore this is not quite what she means though according to the BBC article persistent offenders will be targeted. Fair enough, if you think that person A keeps on breaking the law, watch him till he does and then arrest him. Keep doing so till learns.
The plan however seems to include for all sorts of other things as well. If there is someone in a household who is "persistently anti social" then they will check to see if you have paid your council tax, road tax have a car insured and even check if you have a TV licence. I do not which to defend people who break the law, but at least now we know what all those databases are for.
If you do not cooperate with the state, then they will dig and keep digging until they have something. Scary stuff. However you may feel that is fair enough as we are not talking about Mother Teresa here. It is not fair enough. If you happen to be the brother of a criminal it is not right that the police should single you out for special treatment. You have a right to be treated equally before the law.
Of course all this rampant populism fails to deal with the key issues which are that the police have far too much paperwork to do, even more if they arrest a youth and therefore not enough time to put feet on the ground to persistently arrest persistent offenders. Instead we now see the scary side of the database state, where if the state does not like you for one reason it will find many other ways of picking on you.
Jacqui Smith, the alleged Home Secretary has made a speech to an audience who work in the field of anti social behaviour.
It seems she wants the police to harass young thugs. This seems reminiscent of David Blunkett's threat to turn up outside a fireman's house who had been accused of football hooliganism in Portugal.
Harassment is a crime, made so by the Protection from Harassment act 1997. Presumably therefore this is not quite what she means though according to the BBC article persistent offenders will be targeted. Fair enough, if you think that person A keeps on breaking the law, watch him till he does and then arrest him. Keep doing so till learns.
The plan however seems to include for all sorts of other things as well. If there is someone in a household who is "persistently anti social" then they will check to see if you have paid your council tax, road tax have a car insured and even check if you have a TV licence. I do not which to defend people who break the law, but at least now we know what all those databases are for.
If you do not cooperate with the state, then they will dig and keep digging until they have something. Scary stuff. However you may feel that is fair enough as we are not talking about Mother Teresa here. It is not fair enough. If you happen to be the brother of a criminal it is not right that the police should single you out for special treatment. You have a right to be treated equally before the law.
Of course all this rampant populism fails to deal with the key issues which are that the police have far too much paperwork to do, even more if they arrest a youth and therefore not enough time to put feet on the ground to persistently arrest persistent offenders. Instead we now see the scary side of the database state, where if the state does not like you for one reason it will find many other ways of picking on you.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The ridiculous harassment of photographers
There is an interesting article on the BBC website about the harassment of photographers. Apparently in one case an amateur photographer was asked for "his licence" and pointing out he did not need one did not help. A police officer took him down a side street and made him wipe his camera.
This is all bizarre because you can, and are entitle to, take any picture you want of something in a public place (barring some defence establishments) including people. What is more that also extends to taking picture of things that can be seen from a public space, so if you are driving down the road and see an extraordinary garden, you can stop and photograph it from the road or pavement without requiring permission.
Mind you that is not the first time I have heard of over zealous police not knowing what the law is in a particular circumstance.
For example a police officer thought that a learner driver could drive on his own because he had a full class H licence. Another who demanded to see the MOT on a JCB, which does not require one so you can't get one and so on.
I like to take photographs, and if I were stopped, and told I could not, I would tell them where to get off.
This is all bizarre because you can, and are entitle to, take any picture you want of something in a public place (barring some defence establishments) including people. What is more that also extends to taking picture of things that can be seen from a public space, so if you are driving down the road and see an extraordinary garden, you can stop and photograph it from the road or pavement without requiring permission.
Mind you that is not the first time I have heard of over zealous police not knowing what the law is in a particular circumstance.
For example a police officer thought that a learner driver could drive on his own because he had a full class H licence. Another who demanded to see the MOT on a JCB, which does not require one so you can't get one and so on.
I like to take photographs, and if I were stopped, and told I could not, I would tell them where to get off.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Targets "let dangerous criminals slip the net"
Targets "let dangerous criminals slip the net" is the headline of this article in the Times today.
The long and short of it is that a police constable or indeed their force gets the same points score for convicting a murderer or pedophile as it does for convicting a burglar.
This comes from Peter Neyroud, chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is also a former Chief Constable.
Well, two things spring to mind. Firstly it shows that if you set targets, you need to understand how they can be met, without achieving your ends, and secondly that this government has not got a clue about how to set targets or what effect its targets are having on the ground.
The long and short of it is that a police constable or indeed their force gets the same points score for convicting a murderer or pedophile as it does for convicting a burglar.
This comes from Peter Neyroud, chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is also a former Chief Constable.
Well, two things spring to mind. Firstly it shows that if you set targets, you need to understand how they can be met, without achieving your ends, and secondly that this government has not got a clue about how to set targets or what effect its targets are having on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
