Well, It'll Certainly Cut Crime..!

Police have told shopkeepers not to report thefts of goods worth less than under £20 in a scheme which they claim will cut crime.

/facepalm

Under the trial, retailers are told not to dial 999 if they fall victim to petty shoplifters, but note details in a log book.

It could then be weeks before a community support officer visits to read the log.

Police chiefs claim the policy will reduce thefts in the long term by enabling them to 'build a stronger case' against offenders and impose anti- social behaviour orders to keep them out of shops.

Well, sure. But if it doesn't work, hey, the crime figures came down for a while, right? Score!

Naturally, people who make a living selling things, as opposed to giving them away, aren't happy, and aren't in a mood to co-operate with this barmy scheme:

Anthony Bush, owner of the general stores and post office in Killingholme, said: 'It's an absolute joke. You might as well put a sign on the door to say "nick up to £19.99". I wish the police would explain to me how this is going to drive down shoplifting.

'This is people's livelihood we are talking about. I don't care what they are suggesting, if I notice shoplifting I will call the police.'

And what will they do when he keeps phoning, I wonder?

Humberside Police insist the project does not reflect a lack of resources to investigate crime.

A spokesman said: 'We are not saying we won't investigate.

'We are saying rather than pick up the phone every time a Mars bar goes missing, we are taking this to a better level by trying to build a stronger case against offenders.'

I'm sure it sounds like a great idea...to you. But it doesn't to us.

And it's not what we pay you for, is it? And at this moment in time, do you really want yet more people wondering why we keep paying you?

In fact, more people will start taking the law into their own hands. And probably not the correct way, the way Simon Cremer did*. Because look what happened to him...

But Gilbert was let off with a police caution, while floor fitting firm owner Mr Cremer and his staff were charged with false imprisonment before the case against them was dropped.

Is it me, or has the world gone utterly mad?

How the hell can iDave's 'Big Society' ever work, when those who transgress the laws get coddled and protected, the people we pay to maintain the law shrug and sit on their backsides and ambulance-chasing shysters wait to feed off the carcase of what remnants of decent society still remain?

*H/T commenter RAB via email

‘They Haven’t Gone Away, You Know’ Redux

Councils are secretly rifling through thousands of dustbins to find out about families' race and wealth.

And what possible reason could they have for that?

Waste audits allow officials and private contractors to check supermarket labels, types of unwanted food - and even examine the contents of discarded mail.

The local authorities are using social profiling techniques to match different types of rubbish to different ethnic groups or wealthy and poor households, as part of a recycling drive initiated by the last Government.

Ah. Right. So they have done this in the past.

Are they still doing it? That’s the question. It’s certainly a question iDave’s mob should be asking.

Why were they doing it?

Householders can then be placed into social categories, which in some areas range from 'wealthy achievers' to the 'hard-pressed' - and subsequently targeted for future leafleting campaigns.

Ah. Well, chaps, the money’s run out. Sorry. We can’t afford leafleting campaigns.

Did they get any useful information out of this?

In Hackney, East London, researchers targeted homes based on their potential ethnic and social mix, collecting data separately on four different groups, including ‘multi-ethnic private flats’ and ‘prosperous young professionals’ flats’.

The study found that ‘as expected’ the ‘educated urbanites’ living in ‘trendy’ flats threw away the least rubbish.

Now, there’s an unexpected piece of information! The typical ‘Guardian’/’Indy’ reader is far more likely to believe the green propaganda (and crucially, not want to be seen as out of step by his fellows) and slavishly follow council instructions!

Do go on...

In Bracknell Forest, Berkshire, researchers sifted through discarded food. They concluded that more than half of it could have been recycled or composted if householders had behaved more responsibly.

Translation: ‘If householders had behaved more responsibly’ = ‘If householders had done as they were bloody well told, the ingrates’…

Any more startling revelations?

In Southampton, officials found that homeowners were more likely to put general waste in the recycling bin in the week after Christmas.

Hmmm, could that be because people traditionally have a lot more food (and therefore food waste) at Christmas/New Year, and that that’s also the period when the refuse services are disrupted?

Wow! that was money well spent, eh?

Not all councils went along with this, either:

Dartford Council, in Kent, has refused to carry out the secret surveys.

Jeremy Kite, who is the council’s Tory leader, said: ‘I strongly object to the analysis and examination of waste put out for collection unless specific permission is obtained from the householder and have intervened to prevent such exercises in Dartford on more than one occasion. I do not believe it is right.’

Good for you. I bet you get back in next year, as a result…

Looks Like Colchester Health Authority Has No Worries About Budget Cuts

Health bosses will target smokers on Colchester’s Greenstead estate.

The town’s St Andrews ward is one of six problem areas NHS North Essex Essex is desperate to tackle.

So, health bosses are spending scarece resources targeting people enjoying a legal activity, are they?

What’s more, an activity which brings in far more money in tax revenues that it ever costs...

Initiatives include giving residents incentives to make a stop-smoking pledge.

Tim Young, ward councillor, speaking at a community meeting in Greenstead, said:“The figures for women smoking during pregnancy are not so good for this area, so I have asked NHS officers to look at the demographics of this.

“We think it is younger age groups that are smoking during pregnancy and people living in deprived wards in the borough.”

Tim Young’s effort to bring the ‘deprivation’ excuse into the mix notwithstanding, the demographics certainly are interesting.

According to figures from NHS North East Essex, 19 per cent of people living in Colchester and Tendring smoke.

The national figure is 21 per cent.

So, lower than the national average? Yet much higher in ‘at risk’ groups?

A total of 22.5 per cent of pregnant women in north-east Essex smoke.

The national average is 14 per cent.

Curious. I wonder what the reason for this is? I expect the experts will assume it's because of 'bad role models' (and will have probably had orgasms at the picture that MummyLongLegs points to here). But surely they exist elsewhere too?

Other public sector workers are similarly spending those so-called 'scarce' resources on this:

Council officials, health bosses and Essex County Fire and Rescue Service have joined forces to encourage people to make their homes smoke free.

The Smoke Free Homes campaign asks householders to promise to turn their homes into healthier places by banning or restricting tobacco smoke.

People who sign up will get a support pack containing information leaflets, smoke-free signs, a certificate and a free fire safety visit.

I do like the way they call it a ‘free’ fire safety visit.

In what way is it not paid for by taxes, then?

Leg-Iron has some good advice for those sick to death of this state-sponsored bullying.

You Don’t Say..?

The ‘Guardian’ regales us with the news that this man had ‘a history of violence’:

A man has been found dead after shooting his partner twice in the head while she was out with her one-month-old grandson in a pram.

The man is believed to have had a history of violence…

Well, fancy that!

It was claimed by residents that the man had been given a suspended jail sentence in January 2009 after he admitted putting another former partner "in fear of violence," and had been having an "on-off" relationship with Puttock.

What on earth possesses a woman to flick the ‘on’ switch on a relationship with a man like this?

Police said they were still investigating the two incidents and how Osler came into possession of a gun.

A mystery, isn’t it? Clearly, the anti-gun laws didn’t work, did they?

Still, they ruined competitive sport for a bunch of perfectly harmless individuals, so there’s that…

One resident said: "Ossie was unpredictable man. The police know about him, the courts know about him. He was at Norwich crown court last year and got a suspended sentence."

Another said: "He could never, ever have had a licence for a gun."

Well, he didn’t bother getting one, did he? Why would he, when he was a habitual criminal? Laws are for the law abiding, after all…

The ‘Mail’ has more on the strangely tangled love-life of these two:

Neighbours said Osler may have snapped after Mrs Puttock left their home in Feltwell, near Brandon in Norfolk, to rejoin her husband, David, 48.

Plasterer Danny Wright, 39, said: 'Rachel moved in with Ozzy but then moved back with David. Ozzy told me a fortnight ago they were back together. He was a bit p****d off.'

And we all know what that means, don’t we?

Another neighbour said: 'Rachel and Ozzy had a pretty volatile relationship. He told me Rachel and David had got back together.

'He was going on about it as if he was OK but he seemed pretty messed up about it.'

So, the warning signs were all there.

But how did these two get together in the first place?

Osler, an unemployed lorry driver who had three grown-up children by his former wife, Paula, had been a friend of father-of-three Mr Puttock and was invited to stay in his home last summer.

But he then began an affair with Mrs Puttock, a brunette who has two daughters from a previous relationship.

Ah. Nevermind.

Deliberately Not Getting It?

So, Gadget has closed comments on - and changed the header of - his post yesterday, no doubt after coming under a lot of fire.

He also left this comment before doing so:

"Just visited some anti-police and anti-gadget blogs and I have the following to report:

They are absolutely fuming that I should have the nerve to post a story about police officers saving a child’s life. They simply cannot get their heads around a police good news story. It’s just too much for them to be able to contextualise the G20 incident.

Which is why

I wrote this

In the first place"

Since I've no doubt whatsoever that I feature on his list of 'anti-police' or 'anti-gadget' blogs, despite the fact that I'm neither, and because I obviously can't comment there, I've only this to say:

If you think that I cannot get my head around a 'good news story' about the police, you've lost it. Frankly, after the bad news stories of the last few years, I'd welcome it. Anyone would.

But not today.

Not when anyone with a shred of moral decency would realise that the CPS decision has enraged a lot of people, quite justifiably, as it seems that yet again, the police have been protected from facing the music for yet another act of brutality. Not when the wedge that has been slowly driven between the state and the citizens has just been widened that bit more.

And if you plan to change your blog to run good news stories, to somehow counter the bad news stories that you think the press seek out to make the police look bad, then be aware that you've entered a race 100 metres behind all the other runners, with one leg tied behind your back and a blindfold on.

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post. I think I need to, because it seems some people are hard of learning, no matter how many times they are told something.

Sadly, it seems lately as if far too many police officers are rude and bullying, trigger-happy, or corrupt.

It seems as if, despite being told that what they are doing is wrong and they should stop, they can’t seem to do so, taking that as an excuse to ramp up the harassment of the law-abiding.

And when that is then pointed out to them as a failing, far too many fall back on the claim that the person being harassed ‘had it coming’, was ‘being annoying’, ‘wouldn’t listen to instructions’, oblivious to the fact that no, that’s not your job or your decision to make.

You get to uphold the law as it stands, not make it up to suit yourselves, or bend it to get that target box ticked.

Rather than say 'Oh, that's wrong, but...' how about just saying 'That's wrong, and it shouldn't happen, full stop'?

And furthermore, if your stated reason for writing it in the first place is true, why change the title (though you can't change the URL, which retains the original title)? And why close comments?

We lost a good police blog through the actions of the media (though the archive is here). We seem to be about to lose another one by the self-inflicted actions of the owner.

I Was Wrong...

...back in April 2009, when I posted on the Ian Tomlinson case.

Not totally wrong. I wasn't wrong about the fact that the police have a tough job to do, and face unwelcome attention from all sides of the public divide when things go wrong. But I was certainly wrong to place any kind of faith in the justice system to see justice done.

We know now that that simply isn't to be. Either through incompetence or design (or both? I could well believe it!), the CPS have chosen not to proceed with the case.

The officer still faces internal disciplinary charges. Big deal. It's not enough. It never should be, when uniformed agents of the crown are seen to be above the law.

How did the police blogs react to this? Well, so far, most haven't. But Inspector Gadget waded in, in a post of such spectacular crassness that it fair takes the breath away.

In fact it's hard to see how it could be bettered unless, the next time a plane nose-dives into a mountain and flight-recorder tapes emerge of flight crew incompetence ("Hey, co-pilot! Hold my beer and watch this!"), the airline company immediately displays yesterday's flight schedule on its website and says 'See! Look at all the ones that don't crash!'...

Update: As a palate-cleanser after reading Gadget's post, I recommend this.

"...a move which will send a chill through the arts world..."

Up to one in two of the staff at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are to be made redundant as part of the cuts programme submitted to the Treasury by the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

Hunt has also proposed moving out of the well-appointed departmental headquarters in Cockspur Street, just off Trafalgar Square, with the remaining staff finding room in a different, existing departmental building.

/cheer

...Hunt, who has proposed cuts of between 35% and 50% of all staff, believes he will not be able to win support for the coming deep cuts in arts and media budgets unless he leads by example.

More please, faster.

Naturally, the luvvies and art phonies are shrieking and rending their garments:

Arts organisations are bracing themselves for a torrid time because Hunt wants to keep publicly-subsidised free entry to national museums, on the basis that it improves tourism and the wider creative economy.

In fact, he seems determined to wean them off the state teat altogether:

Arts Council England, which receives £445m to give out to 850 organisations around the country, has warned that it would have to stop funding for at least 200 organisations.

Hmm, a quick glance at their website shows that they certainly aren't cutting staff at HQ. In fact, they are still recruiting. So clearly, they can't be that worried!

And hey, if there's a market out there for Theo Jansen's Ventosa Siamesis, a 10 metre-long, mechanical sculpture powered by the wind, I'm sure someone will sponsor it. Won't they? Charge admission - don't stick your fingers in my pocket...

The RSC's Vicky Heywood warned that drastic cuts would mean fewer productions, less travelling and higher ticket prices.

If your productions are good, people will pay to see them. If they're not, why should I pay for them through tax?

The government is hoping to plug funding cuts by encouraging more private philanthropy but it is a route fraught with problems, not least the danger of safer, more conservative programming.

Hmmm, safer, eh? I'll worry about this when a government-subsidised artist comes up with that natural companion to 'Piss Christ', 'Poo Mohammed'...

I Guess Donna Never Reads Much…

His mother Donna Pell, also 28, said Bailey was healthy and active and 'certainly didn't get fed McDonald's meals every day.'

The receptionist added: 'I was horrified by the letter. They asked for permission to weigh the children, but I thought they'd just give you the facts and figures.'

Did you, sweetie? Did you really?

So That ‘Poacher Turned Gamekeeper’ Stuff Is Overrated, Is It?

A row has broken out after the General Medical Council recruited a woman convicted of conspiracy to abduct a child on to an expert group charged with producing child protection guidance for doctors.

Which sounds crazy, right? Another of those mad, ‘progressive’ ideas?

Well, not when you see just who this person is: doughty campaigner against the medical establishment’s stranglehold on the right to act without fear of personal consequences, Penny Mellor, of ‘MAMA’ fame:

Penny Mellor, from Wolverhampton, served eight months of an 18-month jail sentence after being found guilty of a "wicked conspiracy to abduct" a little girl in 1999. She still maintains she was trying to prevent the child from falling into the hands of social services. Mrs Mellor has been involved in more than 50 complaints against professionals working in child protection, accusing numerous doctors and nurses of misconduct.

Note that the ‘Indy’ carefully avoids giving Ms Mellor’s group any publicity whatsoever. No link, not a reference to the fact that she’s doing this on behalf of disadvantaged groups (mothers fighting the medical establishment).

In fact, their description of her makes her sound like a crank.

Quite different to how they habitually describe campaigners against things the ‘Indy’ is not in favour of, in fact…

The GMC was last night under growing criticism from respected paediatricians, just months after winning widespread praise for setting up the group.

‘Respected’ by whom? Dare we suggest, by other paediatricians?

Child protection experts say they are dumbfounded at the decision to appoint Mrs Mellor, who they believe has contributed to an environment of fear among paediatricians, leading many to turn their backs on child protection work.

That ‘fear’ being based purely on the not unreasonable request that they work within strict guidelines and are expected to face consequences when they get it badly wrong because they haven’t followed procedures, or have no evidence for taking the action they wish to take.

How awful that must be!

The GMC refused to explain its decision to The IoS but its chief executive, Niall Dickson, told the BMJ that Mrs Mellor was included in order to give the group credibility and that it was important to hear all perspectives.

It’ll take a hell of a lot more than her appointment to give this group credibility, unless it moves to redress some of the issues that have hit the headlines recently.

Mrs Mellor could not be reached for comment, but in her BMJ letter she said she welcomed the opportunity to sit around the table with the RCPCH president and "get paediatricians to listen to the other side of the story".

I'm sure she’ll talk. I doubt they’ll listen.

But the GMC are to be congratulated for making the effort. The squalling and foot-stamping by the privileged few shows they are on the right track…

Yes, Beetle Tastes Nothing Like Chicken, but…

…at least the whole family gets a leg!

With around 70 per cent of the world's agricultural land now being used for meat production, a Dutch insect specialist has suggested a novel way of catering to the world's growing population – by eating insects instead of mammals.

Insects! What the hell is this guy smoki…

*checks nationality*

Ah. Right…

Speaking at the TEDGlobal 2010 conference in Oxford, entomologist Marcel Dicke claimed that insects are an ecologically sound – and tasty – alternative to meat.

Dicke, a professor at the Netherlands' Wageningen University, said that while 10kg of feed generates just 1kg of beef, 3kg of pork or 5kg of chicken, the same amount could sustain 9kg of locusts.

Marcel Dicke – not just a name, but a description….