How Many?

How Many? The thoughts of @SteelRiverBoy

Steelriverboy

You’ve all heard about the cuts to the various public services, especially the police.

You’re probably sick of hearing about the cuts, and the effects that they will probably have on you or one of your loved ones.

Tough. You’re about to hear some more, so settle down, and read on.

Now, it might just be me, but RTCs (road traffic collisions) seem to be on the increase. (We don’t call them accidents anymore, as accident implies nobody was at fault).

But I seem to have been to more RTCs in the first five months of this year, than I went to in the whole of last year.

Why?

Because more RTCs are occurring.

It doesn’t take the brains of a rocket scientist to realise that with fewer police officers on the roads, some people will take more risks, or blatantly flout the Road Traffic laws.

How can the country’s traffic departments…

View original post 209 more words

I Have Moved

For the foreseeable future this blog will not be updated any more, although it will remain in case I need it back again.

As of today all new posts will be at

https://retiredandangry.co.uk/

Thanks for your company and I hope to see you at the new site soon

RetiredAndAngry Is Moving

I’ve pondered this for a while, and to be honest the thought of starting over from scratch filled me with dread, and then I discovered some nifty ‘cheats’ and life didn’t seem so bad.

Rebuilding my blog elsewhere turned out to be relatively simple and quick, and enables me to freshen it up and brings about some functionality that I fancied and was missing from the original.  You may stumble across a few duplicate posts just for the next few days.

I’ve got two more blogs queued up on here for 15th and 16th May and I shall post those two in duplicate deliberately so be patient with me for just a few days, than after the 16th RetiredAndAngry will live at

http://retiredandangry.thisistap.com/

Hopefully I’ve carried everything across, but if you come across something that doesn’t work by all means let me know.

If all else fails, I can always come back here if I don’t like the neighbours at my new home.

If It Ain’t Broke Don’t Fix It–What The Country Voted For

In Camoron’s first incarnation as the Nation’s Prime Minister he set about reforming the Legal System system, amongst others.  In doing so he aimed to save about £450 Million from Legal Aid bills.  This led to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO coming into force.

This Act, which personally I had never heard of before, seems to only apply to Civil cases, but some of those Civil cases might affect us at some point in our lives.  It has removed countless cases from the scope of the Legal Aid scheme.

LASPO reverses the position whereby legal aid is accessible for all civil cases other than those excluded by the Access to Justice Act 1999. Whole categories of law have been taken out of scope for legal aid; others only qualify if they meet certain criteria. The categories now out of scope include:

1. Family cases where there is no proof of domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction. There has been a 60% fall in family cases granted funding and two thirds of cases in the family court now feature somebody representing themselves.
2. Immigration cases that do not involve asylum or detention
3. Housing and debt matters unless they constitute an immediate risk to the home
4. Welfare benefit cases; except appeals to the upper tribunal or high court
5. Almost all clinical negligence cases
6. Employment cases that do not involve human trafficking or a contravention of the Equality Act 2010

The 4 out of 6 that I have highlighted are the ones that are most likely to affect us at some time. Don’t think that Criminal Law has escaped either, as from last April the government has cut the Criminal Legal Aid budget by £215 Million as well.

To clarify, this is what I wrote about the (then) forthcoming changes on another site;

“Changes to legal aid

Welfare benefit appeals

You’ll no longer be able to get legal aid to help you make an appeal against a decision on welfare benefits unless you’re making an appeal to the Upper Tribunal or higher courts.  So, once again our caring sharing government has excelled, not only do they slash benefits, ATOS assessments abound, everyone being forced off the rock and roll, but we’ve taken away the only way an unemployed/ill person can use to challenge that decision.  Without a sudden increase in charitable funding, how are these folk going to pay their legal fees to challenge what they undoubtedly see as an unfair assessment etc etc?  Surely this is akin to the school bully nicking your dinner money and then tying you up so you can’t tell anyone?  Or is it just me that thinks that?

Debt

You’ll no longer be able to get legal aid to help you with your debts unless a creditor is making you bankrupt or taking court action to evict you from your home

Housing

You’ll no longer be able to get legal aid to help you with housing problems unless:

• there’s serious disrepair in your home
• you’re homeless
• you’re being evicted from your home
• the council is taking action against you because of anti-social behaviour.

Employment

You won’t be able to get legal aid to help you with an employment dispute or go to an employment tribunal unless it’s a discrimination case.

Private family law

You won’t be able to get legal aid to help you with private family law problems unless you’re a victim or are at risk of domestic violence or there has been or is a risk of child abuse These include:

• divorce
• dissolution of civil partnership
• financial disputes
• property disputes
• disputes over children.

Asylum support

If you’re an asylum seeker, you won’t be able to get legal aid to help you with asylum support unless you have applied for both housing and financial support.

Non-asylum immigration

You won’t be able to get legal aid to help you with an immigration application unless you:

• have been detained
• make an application under the domestic violence rules
• make an application because you’re a victim of human trafficking.

Education

You won’t get legal aid to help with education problems unless the child or young adult has Special Educational Needs.

Consumer and general contract law

You won’t get legal aid for any action you want to take for consumer problems or problems you have with general contracts.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority cases

You won’t get legal aid to help with the costs of trying to get compensation because you’ve suffered a criminal injury.

Clinical negligence cases

You won’t get legal aid for most clinical negligence problems.

What will you still be able to get legal aid for

You’ll still be able to get legal aid for the following problems:

• care proceedings
• family mediation
• asylum applications
• mental health proceedings
• community care cases
• discrimination. “

I seem to recall reading somewhere previously that we can no longer get Legal Aid to challenge Government Decisions but as I write I can’t quite lay my hands on that gem, or I might just be getting old.  I did however find this which might mean that I’m NOT going senile.

“In a judgment handed down on 3rd March 2015, the High Court ruled that regulations brought in by Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, in April 2014 to cut legal aid funding for judicial review are unlawful.

The case hinged on the MoJ’s decision to restrict legal aid for Judicial Review challenges of decisions made by public bodies”

Now we’ve had our General Election and the country voted.  They voted Tory and brought in a (small) majority government with Camoron at the helm.

One of his avowed policies is to scrap the Human Rights Act.  By doing so he will be removing the following collection of Rights from the Statute Book

• The right to life
• The right not to be tortured
• The right not to be a slave
• The right to a fair trial
• The right NOT to be punished if you haven’t broken the law
• The right to private family life
• The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
• The right to freedom of expression
• The right to marry and start a family
• The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions
• The right to education
• The right to free elections
• The right NOT to be given to death penalty

Some are clearly more important than others, and I’m certainly not saying that these rights and this Act won’t be replaced by something else, but what guarantees do we have?  Do we trust a Tory government not to weaken our basic Human Rights? Will there be a replacement Act?  Why replace the one we have?

People of Britain this is what you got when you voted.  Personally I’d rather not replace something unless it’s broke. In terms of Public Protection we seem to be considerably worse off than we were.

Come On Cruella – Explain It To Us

Ii have heard many eloquent people highlighting the problems faced by Police and Public alike caused by the government’s reckless policy of repeatedly cutting the Police Budget.

I know that this problem applies to other PublicSectors also, but today I am concentrating solely on the Police.

It is frequently stated within the Police Service that if the reasons for doing something (for example Stop/Search, Kettling, Tasering) are explained to the public in a calm and reasonable manner then they will probably understand and possibly even support the action, or at the very least become less vociferous in their opposition. A calm explanation as to why I was Stop/Searching an apparently innocent person, the grounds and reason behind it, was frequently all that was required to defuse a tense situation and the person quite frequently went off perfectly happy.

So, Theresa May, David Cameron, why don’t you tell us, the Police and Public, just exactly why the cuts that you have already enacted, and the cuts that you have cued up for the next five years are actually ALL NECESSARY.

I have pointed out previously, on more than one occasion, that many of the 43 Forces have already shed more officers than they needed to to attain their 2015 Austerity Target set by HMIC.  Please explain to us calmly, in a language that we can all understand, why this was necessary.

Please explain to us why, when other public services find their budgets ring-fenced, the Police Budget is not.

Why is the Foreign Aid Budget ring-fenced and the Police Budget not?

Please explain to us why we keep hearing the mantra “Crime Is Down” to justify the cuts when overall demand on the Police Service is UP.

So would you please explain to us all quite calmly all of your reasons for decimating what used to be the finest Police Service in the world.  If you try and explain in a non-confrontational manner we might just understand and agree with you, possibly not, but go on try it, what do you have to lose?

The impression amongst the Police Service is that you are on a mission to destroy the Police Service, well you need to remember that the vast majority of the British Public have no connections with the Police Service whatsoever, but they still need for a Police Service to exist to report their crimes, deal with their Anti-Social Behaviour, maintain their public tranquility ( The Queen’s Peace) etc etc.

Demand UP, Establishment DOWN please explain to us why, JUSTIFY IT.

Ponder This Cruella

Thursday saw a bizarre event.

The people voted and it seems that the people voted for five more years of Cuts and Austerity, and that is absolutely the country’s right, if that’s what they want.

However, within 36 hours of the result being confirmed we had civil disorder outside Downing Street.

I am neither condoning nor discouraging civil disorder, but I AM anticipating it.

Are we heading for a new Summer of Discontent?  Because if we are, think on this, you and Milky have already disposed of over 17,000 warranted Police Officers since 2010, PCSO and Special Constabulary numbers are also down I believe, as are Police Staff.  If this isn’t bad enough you’ve kept your job and are about to embark on 5 more years of cuts leading to the loss of a similar number more.

What are you going to do when the wheel comes off?  When the Met has to ask for Mutual Aid like it did in 2011 something has gone terribly pear-shaped.  We’ve got even less than that now, more destined to go, where will the Mutual Aid come from.  17,000 officers, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is the equivalent of FOUR entire Police Forces along the South Coast, and you intend to DOUBLE that? Think about it I implore you.

Take a look at what happened only yesterday.

Can you hear the people sing?

Can You?

I Can’t Quite Work It Out

The people have voted, and it seems like they’ve got Camoron for another full term.

I don’t agree with them, but I can see why the Jocks have voted SNP, at least that makes some kind of sense.

The rest of the UK have voted for some strange things

They have voted for a much reduced Police Service with a much hampered ability to respond to our various problems.

They have voted for a much reduced Armed Forces, they are at their lowest strength for decades and getting smaller.

They have voted for an NHS in danger of being dismantled and privatised.  Starved of funding, forced to fail, cue private companies riding in to pick up the pieces and rescue them.

They have voted for a shackled Justice system.

They have voted for a slimline Coastguard Service.

They have voted for Probation, Education and Prison Services to be neutered or privatised.

What do all of the above have in common?  None of them sell anything.  Traditionally they have all been sectors that soak up money without the ability to make a profit. How could they?  Until very recently consecutive governments have accepted that fact and whilst there have been minor cuts and Efficiency Drives along the way, it was always accepted that they were sectors that had to have money pumped into them to make them work with no option of getting a profit out at the end. It has always been that way, and I don’t see how it could be any different to that.  Oh, hang on,……..Privatisation might help.

They have voted for Bankers Bonuses.

They have voted for Outsourcing

I truly hope that the the great British Public do not find the need for the NHS, do not ever need a Police Officer, I hope their kids are properly educated, I hope they never need a Coastguard etc etc, because the shape of this country has changed irrevocably, and it’s what the country has voted for.

I didn’t, my conscience is clear, but very many did. I have heard it described as selfish voting. Who knows?

I leave you with one last thought, Be very careful what you wish for because you might get it.

Have Your Say, Tell Me What You Think–The Results Are In

A while ago I posed the question – Would you be willing to pay a small amount more each month to help safeguard our Public Services? I posted a short online survey for you to tell me your views, and the results are in.

Shown below are the actual responses received, minus names and email address etc, apart from that untouched.

I’m not certain that the volume of respondents constitutes a statistically significant sample (I’m sure it doesn’t), but most folk who replied would be willing to pay SOMETHING extra on their taxes, NI contributions etc to help keep our Public Services afloat.

Just a shame that the government never thought of asking the question really, they might have got a bigger response.

Would you be willing to pay a small amount more each month to help safeguard our Public Services?	Police	NHS	Armed Forces	Education	Coastguard	What is the Max amount PER MONTH you would be willing to pay on top of your current taxes?
yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	10
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	100
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	10
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	£1
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	£50
Yes	Yes	No	No	Depends which sector	No	10
Yes. Already paying extra via CT to POLICE	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	10
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	100
yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	10
No	No	No	No	No	No	0
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	25
no	no	no	no	no	no	9
yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	£10
yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	5
Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	50
yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	6
no	yes	yes	yes	no	no	£40
yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	20
Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	10
yes	yes	no	yes	no	yes	2
yes	yes	YES	yes	yes	yes	2
yes	yes	yes	yes	no	yes	10
no	no	no	no	no	no	0
Yes	Yes def	Yes def	Yes defs	No	Yes	£5
Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	5
no	no	yes	no	no	no	10

Memoirs From A Picket Line Part One

Much has been said and written about the notorious Miners’ Strike of 1984/85 and you’ll be pleased to know that I have absolutely no intention of commenting on the politics of it, that is for others.

However, it did occur to me that some of you might be interested to hear what it was like for the average Police a Officer sent 100s of miles to Police a potentially violent Picket Line.

So for those that are interested I propose a handful of short blogs on my personal experiences, so if you’re not interested, simply don’t read them.  On the other hand if you’d like to share your experiences oop norf, send them to me and I’ll happily post, attributed or anon as you prefer.

Each tour of duty for us consisted of 6 straight days away from home followed by a day of Special Leave on the Sunday. If you were fortunate/unfortunate enough to have a Rest Day during the 6 days you were away, tough, you had to put up with being paid for 16 hours at time and a half and losing your Rest Day, unless you opted for the Time of in Lieu option (nobody did).

So my very first foray saw me billeted at RAF Newton, not far from Nottingham. I was used to basic conditions having survived Hendon Training College, but this brought basic to a whole new level.  500 burly cops and their kit in one aircraft hangar, sleeping on camp beds and not very many communal showers or toilets.

My Bedroom

Out of necessity grew banter and camaraderie. I don’t recall anybody fighting for a place in the shower queue and the banter that developed in those confines was World Class.

Fortunately for us our indoctrination was gentle.  6 days of long hours and I don’t remember seeing a single striking miner at whichever pit we were at, I don’t even remember its name, but the evenings, oh what fun. Not being ex Services I had never experienced the NAAFI,  the prices were ridiculous, something like 10 pence for a shot of brandy or Scotch.

The days were dangerous in a totally different way. We had nothing to do except guard a pit where there was no friction, and there’s nothing more dangerous than a bored copper.

When we went for breakfast it seemed like we were always being fed immediately after a Force with nice shiny spikes on their helmets (I think that was Leicestershire, maybe someone can remind me). Well, what better place was there to park your Granny Smith than on one of those spiky helmets? They didn’t seem terribly amused by it though.

A lot of the other Forces were forming up and marching everywhere, very smart. Wel, the Met don’t march unless they have to. The Met formed up in three ranks and ‘Minced’ in formation. Our corporate sense of humour not best appreciated by the Counties Supervisors, they didn’t really see the funny side of it.

The afore-mentioned NAAFI was the scene of just two controversies, indoor rugby against the Air Force, and somebody attaching an I’ve Met a The Met sticker to the portrait of The Queen.  RAF brass not amused either.

But the highlight of the very first week was when one of the lads opened his kitbag and found that his son had packed a Teddy Bear him.  Inevitably, poor Teddy was kidnapped and every day his owner received a Ransom Note with a different set of instructions, ending with one final instruction to bring the ransom (I’ve long since forgotten what that was) to the graveyard next to the Feeding Marquee.  The local Chief Inspector took a very dim view of assignations in graveyards and it was all a bit of an anti-climax after that.

But this was only Week 1, if we thought they were all going to be like this we were in for a shock.

One Rule For Them And Another For Us

So here I am sat in a hotel on the outskirts of Derby, what better than write something for my reader, good evening.

I was minding my own business today when I came across a post from Police Oracle regarding Nick Gargan’s impending discipline hearing, that should have kicked off about a week ago.

It seems like Disclosure Issues can be sorted if you’re a Chief Constable

The original hearing was meant to take place in April but was delayed to address ‘disclosure issues’
A chief constable facing allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards female members of staff will face misconduct proceedings in June.

The original hearing for suspended Avon and Somerset Chief Constable Nick Gargan was set to take place on April 20, but was delayed when it became apparent that disclosure issues needed to be addressed.

At a preliminary hearing held on April 24, the chair of the misconduct panel Dorian Lovell-Pank QC listened to representations about whether some documents could be disclosed and made the necessary directions to the legal teams.

The date for the full hearing has now been set for June 29, with the chair stating 10 days should be set aside for the full case to be heard.

HMI Wendy Williams and independent member John Rickard will hear the case and provide their findings in a report to Police and Crime Commissioner Sue Mountstevens to help inform her decision on the outcome of the proceedings.

Ms Mountstevens said earlier this year that she had hoped to hold the hearing in January or February but had faced delays including finding a convenient date for all of the panel to meet and CC Gargan requesting an extenstion to the deadline by which he had to provide a response to the allegations he faced. 

A consultation was held over whether to hold the hearing in public, but this was ultimately decided against.
CC Gargan was suspended in May 2014. 

Courtesy Police Oracle

My first thought was around the Disclosure issues. I’m pretty certain that we can all quote a few cases where abuse of the Disclosure rules has been an issue, not resolved, and ultimately led to resentment, and allegedly, sometimes a perverse verdict.

Secondly it was pointed out that it had been decided to hold the hearing in private, despite new rules which came into place on 1st May stating that Discipline HeRings would now be held in public unless “it was inappropriate to do so”.  A second example of Double Standards? Or maybe it truly was inappropriate, although I can think of thousands of Criminal cases of a similar nature that are most definitely held in public.

Finally, an absolute lulu came to me.

“HMI Wendy Williams and independent member John Rickard will hear the case and provide their findings in a report to Police and Crime Commissioner Sue Mountstevens to help inform her decision on the outcome of the proceedings.”  Why is Sue Mounstevens having anything to do with this enquiry, let alone be involved in the decision-making after this;

Sue Mountstevens apologises after telling Chief Constable Nick Gargan the name of a whistle-blower who complained about him 

Ms Mounstevens was investigated and found to have committed a “Serious Error of Judgement” for which she later apologised to the alleged victim.

So how can she now still be involved in the discipline process?  I’m obviously getting too old for this malarkey, I just don’t get it.

So there you have it, Double Standards or not, this does NOTHING for Public Confidence and Transparency, in short supply in Avon and Somerset it seems.

I’m certainly no fan of Mr Gargan but I am a fan of Fair Play, so Sue, if you can tell me how this constitutes Fair Play I promise to post your reply unedited.