tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985711776365144891.post1288433950630914838..comments2023-05-19T11:22:45.301+01:00Comments on Your Coleridge Conservative Action Team: Police Authority Winter Consultation on WednesdayChris Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00788153276499154335noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985711776365144891.post-83064492564697817892009-02-09T13:17:00.000+00:002009-02-09T13:17:00.000+00:00Hi Richard,Just to reply to your comments about th...Hi Richard,<BR/><BR/>Just to reply to your comments about the meeting on the 19th. The minutes record:<BR/><BR/>"An amendment was moved by Councillor Herbert and seconded by Councillor Howell to highlight the Committees continued concern over cycle theft and street robbery in the agreed recommendation."<BR/><BR/>I suggested at the meeting that cycle theft should be maintained as a priority, but was told that it wasn't possible for this partnership to do justice to more priorities than the number recommended, and there was already lots going on to tackle cycle theft, hence supporting the amendment to the recommendations as noted above rather than changing the priorities. The problem is as identified in the post - the connection between priorities in these committee reports and action on the ground. By amending as we did the amendment was passed, and the issue is still very much on the agenda. If reassurances given in the committee turn out to be insufficient, I will certainly be revisiting this issue in committee. I'm more than happy to propose amendments to police recommendations - I have done at just about every East Area Committee since May to try getting effective police action on speeding in residential roads, but none of my amendments have been passed by the Labour dominated committee. I look forward to finally winning this battle, so we can see what effect it has in terms of police doing things differently.<BR/><BR/>ChrisChris Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788153276499154335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985711776365144891.post-67904627287210953312009-02-02T00:56:00.000+00:002009-02-02T00:56:00.000+00:00I agree with Cllr Howell's suggestion that power t...I agree with Cllr Howell's suggestion that power to set police priorities ought be in the hands of democratically elected individuals. We have a good example of this working in London, where the Mayor, Boris Johnston, chairs the Police Authority and everyone knows where responsibility lies. I think that model should be built on and used elsewhere. I think Cambridgeshire Police Authority could be strengthened by the presence of more elected individuals, perhaps an MP and certainly a Cambridge city councillor; I don't think there's an appetite for direct elections to the Police Authority here. <BR/><BR/><BR/>One problem we have with many current city councillors is their reluctance to use the influence they do have. The system of councillors having the opportunity to set police priorities at area committees, and hold the police to account for their performance against the priorities set is in my view excellent. However councillors amending priorities recommended by the police is a very rare occurrence. Recently published <A HREF="http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/minutes/2009/0108AREAW.pdf" REL="nofollow">draft minutes of the January West/Central Area committee</A> confirm <A HREF="http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/policing-west-and-central-cambridge-january-2009.html" REL="nofollow">my recollection</A> that councillors at that meeting failed to consider and approve the policing priorities for the next period despite it being on their agenda. The city council and police both also appear reluctant to promote the role of the area committees in setting police priorities. I think the system we do have operating could be used, and publicised, much better. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Members of the Police Authority are currently not prepared to take a stand on matters such as giving police powers to security guards and arming all response police with TASER weapons despite many clearly having misgivings. I believe the city's Liberal Democrats are opposed to both of these developments too, yet none are willing to act. With respect to the police powers for security guards their is a statutory requirement for consultation with Local Authorities, however like other opportunities for influencing policing locally this is not being used. With respect to TASERs, <A HREF="http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/the-role-of-police-authorities-in-decisions-to-extend-taser-deployment.html" REL="nofollow">the minister recently stressed that the deployment to all response police ought be a local decision</A> involving Police Authorities. The police are very unwilling to discuss matters such as these, or the new body-worn video cameras being worn during police consultative meetings, preferring all such meetings to focus on "neighbourhood policing" and "anti-social behaviour". <BR/><BR/><BR/>The mechanism for setting police priorities in Cambridge is currently a confusing mess, with even members of the police authority and professionals working with the system not understanding the <A HREF="http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/city-wide-police-priorities-in-cambridge.html" REL="nofollow">relationship between priorities set by different groups at different levels</A>. In Cllr Howell's post he critisises the Community Safety Partnership for removing cycle crime from their city wide priorities, yet he was a member of the council committee which on the 19th of January 2009 voted unanimously to endorse amendments to the city wide priorities including removing cycling. Councillors did note a number of concerns and mandated the council leader to ask the Community Safety Partnership to improve their communications, but still endorsed the priorities they had misgivings about. One odd city wide priority was to focus on burglaries in Petersfield Ward, which is inexplicable both as North Cambridge has higher level of burglaries and it appeared to be a point more suited to a local, not city wide, priority. <BR/><BR/><BR/>One <A HREF="http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/ruth-joyce-new-police-authority-member-for-cambridge.html" REL="nofollow">unelected member of the Police Authority</A>, who has the role of representative for Cambridge, refuses to communicate directly with the public yet other members of the Authority have not taken action to either remove her or change her position. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I could go on, I'm very passionate about improving the policing of Cambridge, more of my observations and suggestions are on my website at:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/tag/police" REL="nofollow">http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/tag/police</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com