There is to be a Full Cambridgeshire Police Authority meeting on the 29th April 2009 at 16:00 in the Police Headquarters, Huntingdon.

Members of the public are able to ask questions or make statements at the beginning of these meetings. I have submitted the below, all of which I think are important things the Police Authority ought be discussing.

PACE CODES

I am very concerned that Cambridgeshire Police hold the view that the PACE codes are merely guidance which they can choose to ignore. Does the Police Authority support the Police Force in holding this view?

It is my view that there are many important safeguards intended to protect people when they are stopped, searched, arrested, questioned and detained by the police contained only within the PACE codes.

Is it the case that when people are arrested in Cambridgeshire they’re offered a copy of the PACE codes, then the custody sergeant says menacingly – “I wouldn’t bother – we don’t take much notice of those here”?.

On a specific point – why are Cambridgeshire police still ignoring the requirements of PACE Code A with respect to Stop and Account, even though since 1 January 2009 PACE Code A has been amended to significantly reduce the information which has to be recorded. Currently receipts, as required by section 4.12 of PACE code A are not being issued.

TASER

Why has the expanded deployment of TASER to all response police officers announced by the Home Secretary in November 2008 still not been discussed at a full meeting of Cambridgeshire Police Authority? Within hours of the ministerial announcement the Metropolitan Police Authority decided not to extend TASER use to all front line response officers in London on the grounds that they may cause fear and damage public confidence. Why was Cambridgeshire Police Authority not in a position to respond as rapidly and effectively?

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker has said “Clearly, the number of Tasers that a force has is not dictated centrally. It is a matter for individual chief constables, with their authorities, to determine what they should have”. In light of that: what role did the Police Authority have in determining how many TASERs, for non-firearms police, Cambridgeshire would take from those being offered by the Home Office?

Mr Wilkins, a of the authority, had assured Cambridge City Council’s North Area committee he would ensure that TASERs were discussed at a full meeting of the authority. Why has he evidently been unable to fulfill his commitment? He has reported that a paper on TASERs would be brought to a meeting of the Police Authority. When is this now due? Why was it not on the December 2008 or February 2009 agendas? Why is it not on today’s agenda?

How many hours training does a non-firearms officer have with TASER before being issued with the weapon?
Cambridgeshire’s police have used the term “Specially Trained Unit” to describe those non-firearms officers to be issued with TASER. What is a Specially Trained Unit in Cambridgeshire; is it a typical, individual officer who has been given a few hours training?

I support police firearms units having access to TASER weapons which they can elect to use as an alternative to firearms in circumstances where they would otherwise use firearms. I would prefer to be shot with a TASER than with a gun. However I do not want to live in a country where more police officers than necessary are routinely armed with TASERs. I believe any expansion of TASER use would be damaging to the relationship between the public and the police.

PUBLIC SPEAKING

Why was I not allowed to speak and make a statement at the December 2008 or February 2009 full police authority meetings?

Mr Walters did not allow me, as a member of the public, to make a statement to the February 2009 meeting. However he did allow David Copeland of the Cambridgeshire Branch of the National Association of Retired Police Officers to make a statement.

I am very concerned that I was not treated in the same way as Mr Copeland. Neither Mr Copeland or I submitted a request to ask a question or make a statement to the meeting, a fact which I have confirmed with the Police Authority. I do not believe that retired police officers, or those known to Mr Walters, ought be given privileged access to the Police Authority.

I wrote to Mr Walters shortly after the meeting (on the 19th of February) asking for an explanation but he has not replied.

I would like to see a clarification of the public speaking rules at meetings of the Police Authority and details of any guidance which has been provided to the chairman on this matter published.

I note that the agendas for the December and February meetings were not published online in advance of the suggested deadline for public questions.

TRANSPORT COMMISSION

Will the Chairman of the Police Authority and Chief Constable be giving evidence to the Cambridgeshire Transport Commission? How will the police be represented?

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS IN PUBLIC PLACES

I would like to draw the authority’s attention to what appears to me to be a systemic problem of police officers and police community support officers telling people to stop filming or taking photographs in public places when they have no grounds, or powers, to make such a demand. I think there is a need to look into why officers think they have powers to stop people filming and taking photographs, and for them to be reminded that generally they do not.

This is a particular problem with respect to taking photographs or video of crime and “anti-social behavior” being committed by, or involving, youths and young people. The police’s first response is not to tackle the problem youths, but to warn the person taking or offering photographs not to take photographs of youths. What has happened to the police to cause them to invoke this kind of response? Are they taking political correctness to an absurd level? Are paedophiles taking photographs of young vandals and moped riders? Are the police no-longer free to exercise common sense?

I have asked the Chief Constable about this on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire; she expressed her support for members of the public photographing, and even videoing anti-social behaviour by youths, stating that showing such images to their parents can be a very effective way of putting a stop to the problem.

On a related, but separate point I believe it is particularly important that the police don’t try and stop members of the public photographing them on duty / in action when the public think they’re doing something wrong.