Posts Tagged ‘Local Authorities’

Teresa May, the Home Secretary, yesterday announced that Control Orders in their current form were to be scrapped and replaced with legislation that would be far more liberal and Civil Liberties friendly.

The detention period for suspects held under the Terrorism Act 2000 was 28 days without trial. under new guidelines the maximum detention without Trial is 14 days UNLESS it is in times of emergency then it can be extended. Under a technical legislative  device passed by the last government the detention period is 14 days with power to extend.

S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gave the police powers of “stop and search” Under changes a senior officer would need to give authorisation for no-suspicion stop-and-search. Please note this is NO SUSPICION stop and search. The police still have stop and search powers under Sect 1 (2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which says in a nutshell: The main power, used on a daily basis by the police is contained in S1 PACE  It allows police officers to stop and search a person or vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles. The power can only be exercised if the officer has “reasonable grounds” for suspicion.

RIPA has come in for criticism for the way it has been used by Local Authorities to spy on individuals, for instance, to make sure they live in the catchment area for a certain school. Under new powers Local Authorities will need to go to a Magistrate to get authorisation to carry out a RIPA authorised surveillance. The only time they would not need a Magistrates authorisation is if it is the investigation of a serious crime.

RIPA is often quoted as being Counter terror Legislation. it never was nor was it designed as Counter Terror Legislation. It is in place to allow authorities named in the Act the authority to investigate crime where National Security, The Economic well being of the County and Public Safety are involved.

In many of todays papers it has been reported that the Government is to give teachers new powers to enable them to use force against unruly pupils and also give them extended search powers.

Another ploy.

Teachers already have the power to use force IN school. Its is everyones Common Law right to use force to protect themselves others and property. The Education Act mentions teachers using force including restrictive and pain compliance techniques in exceptional circumstances.

Teachers have greater powers of search than Security Officers and can search without parental consent and without the individuals consent if the believe weapons are being carried or concealed.

In all of this Article 2 of the Human Rights Act provides that there is a positive obligation to preserve life so by not defending themselves others and property and using their powers of search they could be in breach of the Human Rights Act.

Teachers won’t exercise these rights as they have not had training. The buck stops with the Education Minister and Local Education Authorities as they should tell schools to provide training for staff. This is a fundamental part of Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (employers must provide information training and supervision)

In deciding whether to train or not its a simple question that has to be answered. Is it reasonably foreseeable that at some stage teachers are going to be victims of violence (threatened abused or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work) the answer has to be yes. Training must be given to reduce risk.

Ironically teachers are not trained due to the belief that they cannot restrain or indeed use pain on children. But the payouts for injuries and law suits that local authorities face for NOT protecting the Health Safety and Welfare of Teachers far surpass the cost of training. Sent via BlackBerry® from BT

Reports in a National Newspaper say that we (UK) have more CCTV than China with a fraction of the population. The UK now boasts 20% of the Worlds CCTV cameras with an estimated 1 camera per 14 people. As individuals it is estimated that we are caught on camera 300 times a day. Whats the problem? well local authorities have been guilty of using legislation designed to Counter Terrorism to spy on people guilty of nothing more than trying to get their children into a certain school.

Senior police officers have openly said that CCTV is responsible for solving only 5% or crime. How can we have 20% of the Worlds CCTV and yet only 5% of crime is solved by the same CCTV designed to stop crime?

Simple really, we believe the reports are correct. Many CCTV operators are not pro-active in their use of the systems they work on and fall into the reactive category of operator. Many system owners are unaware of the management process that needs to be in place in order to ensure that any evidential footage can be admissible in a Court. Having a picture showing crime taking place does not automatically mean that those pictures are admissible in a Court of Law. Many background systems and processes need to be in place in order to satisfy legislative requirements. Paying thousands of pounds to install a system only to find that when you need it it is not admissible is a waste of your money.

CCTV is an aid to security and NOT the be all and end all. Premises still need officers on the ground. The UK has difficulty in retrieving CCTV evidence as there are so many systems on the market with no standardisation. The UK Government missed a trick. Instead of applying standards to all CCTV equipment they let any owner install any system without a thought for recovery of images. The Home Office Scientific Development Branch have standards that cameras must achieve but none of this is a legal requirement.

Watch this space.