Section 43 and photographers.

You may recall the incident less than a fortnight ago when young Jules Mattson was taken to one side by several Police officers during the Armed Forces Day events in Romford.

It appears that it's happened again, a mere 10 days later, and this time in London - when he was photographing Cadets near Buckingham Palace. He had "received approval from the cadets' supervisors as he was shooting images for the cadets' website". (link to BJP)

The Police have, perhaps, at long last been told that using Section 44 is out of bounds - because the BBC tells us it was ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2010 a fact that was brought to the public eye again in June 2010 when the BBC announced that "Thousands of anti-terror searches were illegal" - but didn't mention that the last government had lodged an appeal against the earlier ruling, which was lost.

Today the Police chose another section of the Terrorism Act 2000 - they chose to use Section 43. But this isn't the first time. (Also mentioned here in February)

Here's what Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (link OPSI) says :-

43 Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.

(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.

Mrs Rigby thought it was odd that a teenager, legitimately taking pictures in a very public place could be 'reasonably suspected' of being a terrorist. She has absolutely no idea what the young man might look like, but she thought he must be very unusual, perhaps of striking appearance, perhaps wearing outlandish clothes, and maybe looking a bit unkempt?

Perhaps like this a younger version of this chap? (image Telegraph)

Or maybe he looked like a youthful tramp - such as the one at the front right of this picture? (image HeraldSun)

Perhaps he was tidy-ish, but was smoking a cigarette - like this chap (source)





Mrs R isn't at all sure whether the famous people pictured above might be 'reasonably believed to be terrorists', but the Police must have reasonably thought Jules was one, from either his behaviour or his appearance - otherwise they shouldn't have detained him. That is what the law clearly says.

Here's how some people who know Jules Mattson describe him ... According to this person who says ...

I know Jules and he couldn't really be any more the opposite of the above description. He's polite, courteous and very unobtrusive as he goes about his business.

and another person says ...

knowing people who teach him and help him and guide him while shooting along side him, and his dad being a well know photo journalist, he is trained very well from what I am told and remains very quiet and invisible where he can, I am talking about marc vallee, david hoffman and many other well know shooters. I doubt he was causing any trouble at all. I feel a harassment case coming on very soon.

So, maybe today some 'MOP'* pointed to Jules and his camera and said that he was a terrorist, maybe somebody or other has complained that the pictures on his Flickr pages are unsuitable (they're of politicians, and protests, and other things like that) or maybe somebody has told the Police they're not happy with his blog?

Who knows? It seems that earlier today the Police weren't too sure either because (link to Amateur Photographer)

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police did not have a record of the incident when contacted by Amateur Photographer this afternoon.

There's a saying, isn't there, it's something like "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times ..."

..........
*
MOP = Police-speak for Member of the Public.

P.S.
Just noticed that the same issue is mentioned by Al Jahom along with some other tidbits - please read what he says.

....

Arming the Police?

Because of the actions of one Raoul Moat, Inspector Gadget has written a piece that seems to call for routine arming of all Police

The actions of this individual, and the police response outlined above (recalling all officers to stations for fear of further casualties) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current unarmed police service in Britain is no longer fit for purpose.

and ...

Northumbria Police has had to bring in ARVs from other Forces so as to offer a measure of protection to citizens and officers alike.

Within the comments we can read that,

... all unarmed (the vast majority) of Northumbria officers are grounded, apart from going to “I calls”(I take it they will know which ones are genuine and which is a trap).

The call for routine arming of all Police seems to be widely supported by comments left, so Mrs Rigby, naturally, jumped in with both feet and wrote this. She wouldn't normally repeat comments she's left elsewhere, but this is an exception.

With the greatest of respect to you all, because you do a grand job, and I can see my comment comes after some who are asking for Police to be armed, but maybe you don’t understand why we ordinary mortals are a bit bothered to hear even more talk about having ‘all police armed’.

You see, it’s because we read about things like this (inserted extract ... "One of the hostages was then apparently shot by mistake with a Taser...")

We think most people will recover from being hit by a tazer, we fear that being mistakenly shot if wrongly identified will result in a very different outcome. And, you see, some Police are already telling us it’s illegal to take photographs and some of those are being a bit too pushy about it too. How long will it be before a photographer is tazered for arguing about his or her rights, or for pushing back when a police officer wrongly grabs their expensive camera?

Some people are a bit concerned that some – only some – Police are a bit more worried about looking after themselves, or covering their own backs when they make a mistake, instead of looking after us ‘members of the public’.

We know it’s only a few bad apples, but in the wrong hands a gun is lethal. That’s how we ended up with the knee-jerk legislation that made British gun laws so stringent.

There are lots of legally held guns in this country, their owners are very careful to keep themselves legal. But, you see, as somebody else has pointed out, our gun laws are so strict that decent people and aren’t even allowed to pursue a challenging hobby they once enjoyed. Some of our excellent Olympic shooters have to train in France – yet this chap managed to get a weapon within 12 hours of being released from jail.

How could he do that? It’s against the law!

Aren’t your demands to be armed yet another knee-jerk reaction? We don’t hear you calling out for the same when ordinary folk, including children, are shot dead. Be honest, and ask yourself if you’d be making the same demands if this man had stopped after murdering Chris Brown.

Would PC Rathband have been able to use his weapon, if he’d had one? Would it have made any difference?

Why aren’t we hearing more about pressure and significant efforts to prevent and shut down the illegal gun trade?

The important things now though are to hope PC David Rathband makes a full recovery and the maniac who shot him is quickly captured before he does any more harm.

So why is this comment repeated?

It's because 'Smithyknows' replies to 'Mrs R', 'Crux' and 'JuliaM' with this,

So if you consider how rare it is that fires actually occur why do most people have smoke alarms?

Most rtc’s are minor but most people have airbags.

So why can’t I- who faces danger more often than I have ever had an rtc, a house fire or any kind of such near misses- why can’t I be afforded the same protection of safety when facing seriously armed individuals.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

Once you have dealt with incidents of such violence or volatility that you are chuffed you’re still alive, tell me your opinion.

Do I not have the same Human Right to Life?

It would be very easy to fully fisk this comment and to take up space on Insp Gadget's blog to do so, but that isn't really fair, so Mrs Rigby is responding here on her own blog.

First of all, Mrs Rigby has not, can not, and does not want to 'walk a mile' in a Police officer's shoes - but she has family and friends who have, and who still do. And she knows which of these individuals she would trust to be 'routinely armed'.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

But, 'Smithyknows', you aren't walking in our shoes are you?

You don't know who we are. You don't know how we live our lives. Nor do you know what we, our families and friends, 'do' to make a living - you're making a sweeping assumption that all apparently non-Police commenters know nothing of policing, violence or firearms, and because of that you're claiming that we can't relate to the issues raised when you call for Police to be routinely armed.

You're also suggesting that you should be allowed to protect yourself because of your job, when you know of Britain's very restrictive firearms legislation - drawn up as a reaction to serious incidents, rather than being carefully thought through. Maybe if that law was rigorously enforced then this current 'arming' debate wouldn't be happening, and there wouldn't be questions raised elsewhere about allowing ordinary people, who some Police refer to as MOPs, being permitted to carry firearms or sidearms - and thus being able to protect ourselves when we go about our everyday lives, and when we're doing our jobs, or visiting the park (can't find the link).

Talk about being disconnected! Have you any idea how cynical and self-seeking that looks?

You want a gun because your job is sometimes dangerous. Yet, in the heat of the moment and wanting to join in the debate you don't seem to have thought it through. Or have you?

To make us really understand how tough and dangerous your job is you compare the protection afforded by an airbag and a smoke alarm with a firearm - even an infant will know which of those three tends to save lives and which, in the wrong hands, will take a life.

If you're successful, who'll be next to make the same demands? Will it be the fire brigade, paramedics, night club bouncers, security guards, parking attendants – anybody with a badge who comes into contact with those terribly dangerous MOPs who could turn awkward when they don't want to do as they're told?

And then how long would it be before all these 'official firearms users' are allowed to have them at home - just in case some nutter MOP (who isn't allowed to have a firearm because it's against the law) takes a dislike to them, the job they do, or doesn't like the look of their uniform?

And in the meantime, law-abiding MOPs who go out for the day and take a picnic with them, get their forks taken away - when they visit a museum, because presumably somebody has decided that cutlery is a dangerously offensive weapon.

We are told the Police form a service that is ...... a varied, multi-layered, responsive institution working to ensure your safety - the 'your' refers to us MOPs, it isn't inward-looking, self-protecting.

..........

There are currently 168 comments left on Insp Gadget's blog please take the time to read them, if only to see how they highlight what seems to be a widening chasm opening up between the Police and those they're supposed to serve - because the Police is still called a Service - and that's what we expect, a service. And, oddly enough, we also expect them to know the law.

And, as an aside, it's important to remember that we MOPs tend to follow instructions, especially at airports which we're told are very dangerous places these days. We take off our shoes and belts, and bracelets, ear rings, rings and watches whilst waiting patiently in the 'security' queue and we put indescribably small liquid items in a see-through bag. Sometimes we get frisked because a filling or a metal screw in a knee has panicked a machine, or maybe it's because there's a target to chase. We often have our hand luggage publicly dissected by uninterested officials who don't even speak to us and now, at some airports we can be x-rayed - refusal means not being able to travel. All this is meant to deter the bad guys, so we do as we're told.

So why is it that Mrs Rigby hasn't a clue what she and her family, as ordinary members of the public - MOPs - are supposed to do if, and when, one of those 'routinely armed with scarily big guns' black-uniformed Police she sees at an airport shouts out a warning and then instantly opens fire? Should we try to run and hide? Should we throw ourselves to the ground, and try to merge with the floor? Or are we meant to turn into statues in case any small movements are seen as threatening and we're mistakenly identified as a 'target'?

....

Insp Gadget falls in love.

Here's why

Gadget writes

I Think I’m In Love With Theresa May.

This is why Insp Gadget has fallen in love. It's because Theresa May said:

“I can also announce today that I am also scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge with immediate effect”

“I know that some officers like the policing pledge, and some, I’m sure, like the comfort of knowing they’ve ticked boxes”

“But targets don’t fight crime. Targets hinder the fight against crime”

“In scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge, I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a 30-point plan; it is to cut crime. No more, and no less.”

And Insp Gadget wants all Police to write something in their notebooks.

“I can also announce today that I am scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge with immediate effect” Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, June 29th 2010.

If anyone tells you different, it may well be an unlawful order. Check with the Federation Rep at your nick. I think I’m in love with Theresa May, and it doesn’t make me a bad person.

As usual, please visit Insp Gadget's site to read the whole post, and don't forget to read the comments too - there's interesting things there.

....

Time for the Police to snap out of it?

The Filthy Engineer mentions that yet another photographer has been arrested for taking photographs.

This time, according to the BJP

On Saturday 26 June, photojournalist Jules Mattsson, who is a minor and was documenting the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford, was questioned and detained by a police officer after taking a photo of young cadets.

Now take a look at the video for yourself, and listen to how this 'incident' is escalated by the Police, and how the supposedly 'criminal acts' change from one moment to the next.



Now you've seen that it's good to remember that this was, initially, the Police trying to prevent a teenager taking pictures of other teenagers who are Army Cadets - all of which took place during the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford. An event you would presume local people would want to record for posterity.

It's a pity, isn't it, that nobody had told those Police officers about Mark Vallee

A photographer and a videographer have each won £3,500 in damages from the Metropolitan Police after the pair were prevented from recording a protest outside the Greek Embassy in 2008.

The Met admitted that it breached Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - and failed to respect press freedom - when an officer pulled a camera away from photographer Marc Vallée and covered the lens on a camera being used by videographer Jason Parkinson.

The pair were attempting to record a political protest outside the Greek Embassy in December 2008.

Marc Vallée told Amateur Photographer: 'This is the second time I've been forced to take legal action against the Metropolitan Police since 2006 and I would like it to be the last.

'The question to consider is: "Is the overall harassment of photographers by the police a deliberate policy or a series of unrelated mistakes?".

In 2008, Vallée won £4,000 in an out-of-court settlement after clashing with police while photographing a political protest outside Parliament.

Read the rest of that article at Amateur Photographer, and also see from their news archive how often this sort of thing is happening, and also how often photographers are being awarded damages.

In case you were wondering, a Met spokeswoman issued a statement to the BJP

"It is clearly not the intention of the MPS to prevent people from taking photographs, although, as the public would expect, officers will remain vigilant, particularly in crowded public places. Any allegations or complaints about police treatment of photographers are taken very seriously by the MPS."

She adds: "Anyone who is unhappy with the actions of individual police officers can make a formal complaint, which will be thoroughly investigated. Although at this time we have not received a complaint about this incident and no allegations of crime have been made, we will investigate the circumstances. Our officers do receive guidance around the issue of photography through briefings and internal communications and we continue to drive this work forward."

As always, please read the original article for yourself, because Mrs Rigby always changes the order in which things have originally been written.

Now a question.

What would you do if your teenager came home and related how they'd been treated by the Police, showed you some pictures and let you listen to a recording ... and then you later found out that the same Police hadn't even taken the trouble to record a crime?

It makes Mrs R wonder what all those threats were for ... because at the moment she hasn't a clue. She does, however, think it might actually be worth buying Amateur Photographer when it hits the shops on 6th July, because included with the magazine is a 'photographers' lens cloth". (Picture from Amateur Photographer)

P.S.

To read Jules Matteson's own words please go here

For a transcript of the recording please go here

....

Rules and regulations.

If you read this excellent, and very reasoned article by Simon Jenkins you'll also have the chance to read quite a lot of comments. Some, of course, are calling for more legislation, some agree with the author and say we should back off, but Alfredthegreat sets the tone

Wow, Guardian posters railing against the big state. Maybe there is hope yet.

There were a few more that caught Mrs Rigby's eye. mikeeverest asks:-

Why, in a civilised society, is a taxi driver allowed access to lethal weapons?

Tell you what mikeeverest, Mrs Rigby's got a good idea that'll make us all much more 'civilised' and make sure nothing like this can ever happen again.

Let's nag and pester the government into bringing in a nice new law that says all taxis, oh, and buses and, to be really safe, all motor vehicles must have a big sign that says, "It is against the law to carry lethal weapons in this vehicle." And lets have a whole new squad of enforcement officers too, with instant 'penalties' for the naughty people who break the brand new law.

That'll work, won't it?

But a regular Guardian reader does it even better, took the words right out of Mrs R's mouth!

Erm, every taxi driver does have access to an extremely lethal weapon Mike - it's called a car - ever thought of the damage you could do with one of these if you went a bit mental?

I'm currently cutting up my dinner with a razor sharp implement I could use to butcher my entire family if the mood took me - I think we have to be mindful of the 'ban everything' mentality of the hideous nulabour regime and realise, relucantly and with regret, that there will occasionally be nutters who do terrible things you just can't legislate for.

..........

Let's move onto something else that's prompted by the article.

Numbed says this

I work with children everyday, and everyday at least one person makes some bizarre remark about child safety that puts the onus on my organisation to increase security measures, as if I was suddenly working in a maximum security prison, rather than a place of education and support for young people.

The silliest example recently was when - in a public building, also used by children, a visiting teacher asked why a male member of staff (CRB checked and cleared) was allowed to use a bathroom that might also be used by a child.

I could go on...

In another circumstance, a school locally failed OFSTED for not having high enough walls around the children's toilet building, despite the fact that the windows to the room were high and opaque glass.

Additional security for perceived guilty-until-proven-innocent adults who have regular contact or even irregular contact with children is ridiculously out of hand now.

repeal, repeal, repeal.

I'm watching a generation of young people growing up knowing that when confronted or challenged for poor or dangerous behaviour, all they have to yell is "pedo" and the power is with the child not the adult.

children deserve rights and they deserve to be respected, but adults should not fear children and they certainly should not be presumed to be dangerous when there is no evidence to prove they are.

A little later on shazthewombat says this

@ Numbed 8.01pm - great and depressingly familiar post. At my school, we've had the same stuff about kids & adults potentially using the same toilet facilities.

More worryingly, we had a supply teacher in last week. One of the children was overheard to say that he was gay and a paedo, and was going to rape someone.
This child is 10. There is something very wrong somewhere when kids of that age think it's acceptable to make comments like that - especially since official responses to such accusations can be swift and harsh.

and Numbed's response:-

and the ridiculousness of it is that I find myself constantly watching my behaviour around children. I don't touch them, even when they are upset or hurt; I don't give them anything other than water for fear they are allergic to everything else and that I will be prosecuted for causing them harm; and i find myself saying "of course, i understand" when some nutty comment is made because I am too scared that to challenge them would mean I too am a risk and that my organisation would lose it's reputation or business if I did.

I hate that I do this and I absolutely hate that I don't challenge this head on.

Instead, I wait for a staff meeting or similar and raise my concerns there. But, I generally meet with the response that we have to work within the law and that we also do less harm by agreeing than by dissenting.

this is terrible.

Mrs Rigby simply can't comment. These experiences show just how bad things have got in the past few years. There really is a lot of unpicking to do.
..........

Let's move on to robi, who is still in Guardianista mode

Many people enter into blind fits of rage... most of the time they don't have access to firearms and most of the time their rage subsides and they can go and seek anger management courses.

Yerrs!
..........

So let's move on to the discussions about the police response. There are varied comments, some say Cumbria uses Lancashire's helicopter ... and it got there quickly, they saw it flying over. They are corrected by another person who saw the same helicopter and it was Sky News.

There are questions, as already mentioned, about police preparedness. "Dungal", who lives in the area, explains things :-

I really don't think the police could have done a lot to prevent this incident as they are mainly briefed on terrorism due to Sellafield, which if targeted would make Simon's article look like opportunism.

Which means, of course, that if Mr Bird had driven up to Sellafield they would have known what to do, because he might have been a terrorist.

Small point. Although Mrs R has never met one she's fairly confident that "terrorists" don't always ask first before they start shooting, and they don't always look like terrorists either.

If there was a specially trained team available, why ...

Oh, there's no point in asking the obvious question, is there?

We know the routine - a committee will get together and have an enquiry. Afterwards they'll tell us it's very sad and 'lessons will be learned'. At least that's what they used to say, and then they'd bring in even more rules.

So, let's hope Cameron means what he says. The last words are his, via BBC.

"Of course we should look at this issue but we should not leap to knee-jerk conclusions on what should be done on the regulatory front. We do have some of the toughest legislation in the world," he said.

He added: "You can't legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone's head and this sort of dreadful action taking place."

..........

h/t Al Jahom, without whose blog Mrs R wouldn't have read the article in the Guardian.

....

Fast response?

... Derrick Bird was able to continue shooting people for a good three hours, entirely unhindered. According to press reports, the tv news seemed to be aware of the route being taken by the killer and warned local villagers to stay inside. The Cumbria Constabulary is small, sure, by comparison to other forces – but it does have 1,500 officers, plus the usual complement of “Blunkett’s Bobbies”. To find and apprehend one man. ...

So says Rod Liddle, and he asks a few more questions too.

Inspector Gadget says

I support the routine arming of all UK mainland police officers at all times.

Mrs Rigby acknowledges that the events in Whitehaven and nearby towns are a terrible tragedy. Any loss of life is sad, to have members of your family killed by somebody on a killing spree must be awful, and it's something Mrs R can't really relate to.

But things like this do happen. Thankfully they're rare events, but there are 'nutters' out there who do terrible things, and they always seem to find a way round the law, because they ignore it. And they don't just ignore the laws relating to the owning and use of firearms.

They ignore the law that says murder is illegal.

The media is, naturally, awash with 'ban all guns', 'ban all violent video games' and so on. The sort of knee-jerk reaction we've come to expect. It's the sort of reaction that led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 - following the Hungerford Massacre in 1987.

But that legislation didn't stop the Dunblane killings in 1996.

And the more stringent Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 and melting down of previously legal and never-killed-anybody weapons didn't stop Rhys Jones being killed in 2007, although it has stopped Britain winning Olympic medals.

So Mrs Rigby would like to ask some questions:-

1) Could Mr Bird's actions have been predicted?

2) Would armed police have prevented Mr Bird from going on his killing spree?

3) Would armed police have prevented him from taking any of these lives, including his own?

4) How easily could Mr Bird have acquired his firearms by other than legal means?

5) Have Britain's 'strict' gun laws seen a real, unmanipulated, statistical decrease in the number of shooting/gunshot fatalities?

If the answers to these questions are, "No", "No", "No", "fairly easily", "No", then routine arming of all UK mainland police officers would be a waste of time, more draconian firearms laws would also be a waste of time, and the existing laws - along with the penalties for breaking them - need to be carefully reassessed. They need to be reassessed using all those lovely statistics the last government liked to collect and looked at alongside legislation in other countries, including different states of the USA.

The UK population is apparently around 62,598,810. If correct, it means that 62,598,809 people did not go on a killing spree in Cumbria.

The government has to be very sure the rest of us are not punished for the wrongdoing of one man who is now beyond punishment.

..........

Oh, and maybe this is a slightly flippant comment that shouldn't be allowed. But, we have been led to believe that CCTV and webcams will prevent crime.

Mrs R has no idea how many constantly-running cameras, watched and monitored by carefully-trained operators there are in the towns Mr Bird drove through, but she did find this map of 'webcams'.

If CCTVs and CCTV operators are as good as they say, then Mrs R wonders why reports indicate that the police were alerted by a 999 call made from a mobile phone.

....

At the seaside.

A day at the seaside sounds good, and it is good for some children because it can be somewhere to relax and have a bit of old-fashioned fun. Building sandcastles with turrets and moats, and trying to beat the incoming tide. Working out how to skim stones, and being best at it. Figuring out a way to pull that huge crab out of the water and get it into a bucket.

Paddling along the water's edge should be fun too - hopping over the waves, standing still and seeing how long it takes for your toes to be buried by sand. It should be safe too, because all parents know the perils of water and the erratic power of waves.

Not so one family who took their daughter to Porthcawl.

The floating body of Samayh Ali was spotted by a passer-by who dragged her from the water onto the beach.

The anonymous life saver the gave the toddler mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and CPR until she spluttered and started breathing again.

Good job the little girl wasn't spotted by this chap.

'Just sitting' by the sea can be good too, there's something mesmerising about moving water, there's always something to see and, of course, we all know to protect ourselves from the hot sun and make sure our children's delicate skin is not damaged by those nasty rays.

But, all the preaching, all the posters, all the TV ads - just what's the point? They've been at it for donkey's years but it seems that at least one 29 year old mother has never noticed any health warnings.

At Brighton

‘An ambulance was called for the five-month-old baby who was visiting Brighton from London with his 29-year-old mother.

Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) intervened after they saw the boy on Brighton seafront on Sunday afternoon as temperatures reached 25c.

‘Paramedics who attended the scene believed the boy was suffering from 20 per cent burns to his body.

So, maybe some PCSOs are useful after all.

Oh, and afterwards?

The little girl was ...

"taken to hospital by ambulance for check-ups but was well enough to be allowed home"

The baby?

Sussex Police have passed information regarding the un-named mother, from Plumstead, south London, to the Metropolitan Police.

but ...

A spokesman for the Met Police could not confirm whether an investigation would be conducted.

....

Insp Gadget is cross.

On 19th May 2010, a Police Officer was stabbed twice in the stomach during a robbery at a bookmakers in Berkshire.

A man was arrested and later charged.

Inspector Gadget isn't impressed, and neither are members of Thames Valley or Surrey Police.

Here's why ...

In 2006, Kes Nattriss was sentenced to seven years and nine months in prison for a spree of attacks on off-licences in Woking and Bracknell.

Nattriss robbed 10 shops over a period of 12 days after jumping bail for a racist attack in March in Guildford during which he threatened a man and kicked and spat at his car in front of the victim’s terrified teenage son.

This means that he should have been in prison until 2014. But it’s 2010 isn’t it?

Why, yet again, just like Andrew Lee Fenn, is Nattris out of prison, free to rob and stab again?

Here are the Natriss charges from the 2005 jobs:

North West Surrey Division:

1. Charged with robbery violence following a robbery at Threshers Off Licence, Coldharbour Lane, Woking on Thursday 18 May

2. Charged with robbery violence following a robbery at Threshers Off Licence, Kingfield Road, Woking on Thursday 18 May

3. Charged with robbery violence following a robbery at Threshers Off Licence in Addlestone on Monday 22 May

Thames Valley Area:

1. Charged with robbery violence following a robbery at Threshers Off Licence, Broad Street, Wokingham on Tuesday 9 May

2. Charged with robbery violence following a robbery at The Local in Bracknell on Saturday 13 May

3. Charged with attempted robbery following an incident at Co-Op Stores, Crown Wood, Bracknell on Tuesday 16 May

4. Charged with robbery violence following a robbery at The Local, Bracknell on Tuesday 16 May

5. Charged with robbery violence following a robbery at Threshers Off Licence, Binfield, Bracknell on Sunday 21 May

6. Charged with criminal attempt following an attempt to steal money, a car and briefcase from another person in Bracknell on Tuesday 9 May

7. Charged with criminal attempt following an attempt to commit a burglary in Crowthorne Road, Bracknell between Thursday 4 May – Sunday 7 May

8. Charged with burglary non dwelling with intent to steal following an incident in London Road, Binfield, Bracknell between 4 – 5 May

By the way Mrs R doesn't mind you leaving comments about this here, but your opinions would probably be very welcome over at Insp. Gadget's place

....

Met uses comedian for training

The Met Office plans to use Mr Thomas's case as an example when training officers.

A typo, but even so it might go some way towards explaining why the Met Office can't get the weather right.

The story actually refers to Mark Thomas, the comedian, who has successfully claimed damages from the Metropolitan Police after being stopped and searched - because he appeared over-confidant.

Maybe they think we should all be quaking in our shoes whenever we see a Police Officer?

And the Met Office, the one that is meant to be able to forecast our weather? That one's in trouble too - possibly also a case of over-confidence. Airlines and allied employers and businesses are complaining because,

“The Civil Aviation Authority base their decision on what they are being told by the National Air Traffic Services [Nats]. Nats say they base their decision on what they are being told by the Met Office and the Met Office say they are only making a weather forecast.”

All well and good, perhaps, to say they're 'only making a weather forecast' - but this is the same Met Office that decided to stop making long range forecasts because it is too difficult for their lovely computer system to manage.

Their predictions of doom relating to this volcanic dust are based around a theoretical computer model, no doubt put together by somebody, or a team of somebodys, who thought they knew what they were doing - but it seems they may have been wrong.

Maybe they should look at this picture, from the Mail. The streak of light crossing the picture is an aircraft. It's there, right above the volcano. It's a survey plane, collecting data.

As the IATS (International Air Transport Association) says,

“We have seen volcanic activity in many parts of the world but rarely has it resulted in airspace closures, and never on this scale

And all this chaos, all these stranded holidaymakers and businessmen and women, all the school closures and the distinct lack of supermarket tomatoes - all this can be safely laid at the door of the Met Office and their computer modelling. The same Met Office that brought Britain to a standstill last winter because they couldn't manage to predict ice and snow has now been allowed to bring Europe to a halt.

They, and organisations like them, are why Britain is losing credibility. Our weather forecasters are dependent on computer models that don't work - and because of this the organisation will, surely, soon lose lucrative international contracts, which will mean job losses ...

....

Police apology.

A spokesman for Hampshire police said the force had apologised to the family for targeting their home by mistake and the matter was under investigation.

Why would they need to apologise and give gifts of one bottle of beer and a bunch of flowers?

Officers forced their way into Kayleigh Hill and Anthony McVey’s home while they slept, on the hunt for a suspect who had moved out months ago.

....

End to stop-and-search?

Spotted on Unenlightened Commentary - a timely reminder.

Ten Years For Photographing Police?
"If new rather nebulous "anti terrorism" laws are introduced next month then possibly yes.

Update: Yes this is from last year. "

It may have been 'old news' but is worth revisiting

"Set to become law on 16 February [2009], the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week."

and

"Check bjp-online.com for updates."

Here is the BJP's latest update, dated 4th March 2010

Terror watchdog calls for end to stop-and-search

Lord Carlile of Berriew, the UK's terror watchdog, has called for Section 44 of the Terrorism Act to be scrapped, weeks after the European Court of Human Rights found it illegal.

Speaking at the Policy Exchange think-tank, Lord Carlile said that the use of the controversial powers had become counter-productive in the fight against terrorism, according to the Evening Standard.

He added: "The power given by Section 44 continues to cause a disproportionately bad effect on community relations, with the often inaccurate but genuinely felt belief that it is used in a discriminatory way. It has certainly been used in some instances without reason, let alone suspicion." Read the Evening Standard's full report here.

Section 44 powers have been found to be illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. The court said that officers could easily abuse the powers and that, since police officers can stop anyone without the need for suspicion, it was virtually impossible for a member of the public to prove that the powers had been abused.

In the past two years, the powers have been increasingly used against photographers. In January, close to 2000 of them - amateurs and professionals - gathered in Trafalgar Square to defend their rights to take pictures in public places and protest the 'illegal' use of stop-and-search powers against them.

Lord Carlile has also advised police officers to use Section 43, which requires officers to have suspicion before stopping someone.

More references on Evening Standard's site relating to ECHR are here

....

Karma

The highest rated comment beneath this story in the Mail, referring to the lenient non-sentence given to a twenty year old 'joyrider' Sean Rider, who was not jailed for "killing police dog and injuring two officers in wrecking spree" was from 'Police Officer', who wrote :-

All I will say is KARMA......

One day these thugs will be scraped of the highway or found in hospital after some "chav" dispute involving knives. Noone will cry for them, noone will care, everyone will celebrate...

Why do we tolerate this?? Even one such as I who has sworn to uphold the law and protect life at all costs am fed up with apprehending them, gathering the evidence before charging only to see them walk out of court the next morning on "unconditional bail."

Two of my collegues last month recieved broken bones from seperate assaults with both offenders now out on bail. The officers will have permanent life changing injuries that will effect the rest of the service. Both are ex soldiers who have already served their country in the battlefield.

We are sick of the judicial system and of the goverments attitude towards law abiding members of the public.

NO WONDER THE PUBLIC HAVE LOST FAITH IN US!!

Perhaps the Mail's decision not to permit comments for the article reporting was rather wise :-

Police chief is held for 'torching car to cover up affair with barrister's wife'

and

A Thames Valley Police spokesman confirmed that ‘a senior police officer’ had been arrested, suspended from duty and bailed pending further inquiries

and

He was taken to a Hampshire police station for DNA tests

It's often the words or expressions that contain the fewest letters that raise a smile!

KARMA indeed.

....

Don't be a stranger.

Imagine this happening in your town.

You go for a day  out with a friend, on the way home you decide to get some fish and chips. You spot 'something happening' and more Police than you've seen in years. It's all quite exciting, so you decide to take some pictures with your nice new camera so you can show the folks at home.

You are challenged by a Police Officer as follows:

“You are a stranger in *insert-town-name** and you are . . . . .”

“I am not a stranger in *insert-town-name* I have been here two years.”

“Then tell me who you are I’ve never seen you before.”

This actually happened to Stephen Russell, in Kidlington, near Oxford. He recorded events until :-

the officer manhandled me and switched off my camera,

He had his pockets searched, was taken to the police station. You can read the whole story on Stephen Russell's own blog.

Stephen also explains, in a later post, how easy it was for him to be confused with a terrorist.

There is a report about this incident on Amateur Photographer, along with a discussion within their forum. The Oxford Times also carries a report and goes on to explain the why the Police were there in the first place :-

Police spokesman Daniel Donovan said officers were called to the High Street at about 4.15pm after a gang hurled a bottle at a woman passer-by. 

And what happened to the bottle throwers?

Officers arrived and the louts were told to move on.

Good job none of them had a camera!

....

Injecting 'realism' into 999 calls.

Julie Spence, Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police, said Judge Sean Enright's complaint gave her a chance to 'inject a note of realism' into the perception of policing.

The Chief Constable of Cambridge was speaking in an internet podcast in response to Judge Sean Enright's complaint that Cambridgeshire Police had failed to attend a 999 call. She claimed it "gave her a chance to 'inject a note of realism' into the perception of policing."

'But the fact is the best funded, biggest force in the world would not be able to attend every 999 call.

True, there are clear cases when 999 calls are a wasting time, including those who phone because their cat is playing with a piece of string, but others are not.

The Chief Inspector doesn't believe anybody really expects the Police to turn up when we call them :-

'Nor do I believe that is the expectation of most of our callers. Most know and appreciate and understand that their need may sometimes be less pressing than another's.'

Actually, Chief Inspector, people ("callers") who decide to dial 999 do tend to expect the Police to turn up. Not many of them make either silly or malicious calls, and they don't expect some invisible individual in a central control room to make a decision based on the needs of others - especially if they are calling because there's a stranger in their back garden and they are scared.

But then maybe people in Cambridgeshire don't fully understand how important it is to have Police staff, either uniformed or not, spending their time writing blogs for Police Dog instead of either answering, or responding to, emergency calls.

Rigby Town, by comparison, is lucky - on the very few occasions we, or those we know, have needed to dial 999 the Police response has been rapid, efficient and appropriate. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the ambulance service, who on one occasion took over 2 hours to arrive. Even statistical wizards haven't been able to conceal the fact that our 'local' ambulance service has been rated as "weak".

.

Policing Pledge

Checking the DirectGov site for a reference to the once widely publicised "Policing Pledge" this is what you find.

First :-

The Policing Pledge is a national set of promises to the public which every police force has signed up to.

Then this explanation :-

The policing pledge is a set of promises from the police to you about the services they will provide. All 43 police forces in England and Wales have agreed to keep those promises so the same set of promises apply wherever you are. Find out more about what that means to you.

... followed by ...

What the pledge promises

Through the national policing pledge, every police force promises to listen to you and your neighbours, and to act on any problems you raise with them.
The pledge promises that:

police will treat you with dignity and respect at all times

emergency 999 calls will be answered within ten seconds, and that help will be sent immediately

if you call 999, you’ll be told when help will get there, and it will be there on time

police will handle non-emergency calls quickly

if you need to make an appointment to discuss local crime problems, you can

neighbourhood policing teams will spend at least 80 per cent of their time on the beat in your neighbourhood

your neighbourhood policing team will keep you informed about what they are doing about local issues and priorities

The pledge also says that if you're unhappy with the service you've received and you report that to the police, police will get in touch within 24 hours and discuss the situation with you. They will give you the opportunity to talk about it with someone from your local police, in person.

 To read the "... full national policing pledge ..." click here (pdf)

Here's a little story from Merseyside ...

Lee Fairbrother, 26, who had consumed a cocktail of drugs and alcohol, was spotted by two officers on the M57 near Aintree in Merseyside in July 2007.

They decided not to stop because they had not been trained to deal with motorway incidents

Maybe it would also be worth finding out how a Police Officer could forget where (s)he was, because :-

the officer reporting the matter gave inaccurate information - saying Mr Fairbrother was near junction 1 when he was actually 14 miles away, near junction 7

The coroner is, of course, being realistic, the inquest is of an an incident almost eighteen months ago, and of course since then things have changed for the better.

Haven't they?

Speaking after the hearing, Ch Insp Chris Markey said: "Since this tragic incident some changes have been made and the motorway is now patrolled by North West Motorway Police Group.

"Motorways can be a dangerous and difficult environment to police.

"It is because of these reasons that only trained and specifically equipped roads policing officers are deployed to incidents on the network, a practice that is also adopted in most forces in the UK."

So maybe Police officers will use a motorway to get from a ->b and, because they are "not trained to respond to motorway incidents", they will drive straight past any problems they might notice - because they've been told to?

It would seem so, if this is anything to go by.

The two officers were not trained to stop on the motorway so hence they didnt ok they got the location wrong and should of made the comms op aware of its urgency but they did what they were supposed to if they had stopped and something had happened they would be in the firing line!

It is the victims fault he got drunk and decided to take a walk home via a major motorway and paid with his life my thoughts are with his family but this should serve as a lesson for all motorways are for cars not for pedestrians!

It's hard to see how that opinion ties in with what's written in the "pledge".

Thankfully there's also this :-

me my self whould have stopped but thats me.

The "Police Pledge" is not new news, it is not a new promise, and there is a copy of this so-called "pledge"on the Merseyside Police site, it's here. The same words are carried on all force sites. This "pledge" is meant to apply evenly to all, not to be interpreted differently by different individuals and different regional forces, but it would seem that it is.

We're getting so used to empty words from those who are paid out of the public purse. It's more than worrying to learn that those who are trained and paid to, well, to Police the law and keep us safe, even when we've been a bit stupid, have been ordered to walk away and do nothing in certain circumstances because doing otherwise means, maybe, putting themselves at risk.

But, at least the Police do their job properly, on the whole. **

Don't they?

Another couple of little stories, also from the BBC.

This one

Kent Police have admitted they broke the law when they stopped and searched some people at Kingsnorth Climate Camp.

This isn't actually referring to "some people" - which suggests adults, it is referring to two eleven year olds who were searched and DNAd - as reported earlier

The stop and search of 11-year-old twins at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp was unlawful, Kent police have admitted at London's High Court.

There's also this one

A group of G20 protesters are to sue the Metropolitan Police after all charges against them were dropped.

..........

** The Rigbytown Police, when we see them, have been efficient, polite and friendly.

He didn't say what you said he did.

Several newspapers have reported that the new Chief Constable of South Wales won't be doing his own shopping any more - " for security reasons".

It would seem that the initial story was carried in Police Review, written by a Police Review reporter who had interviewed the newly promoted Chief Constable.

In the Telegraph the story starts to resemble the BBC's reporting of the Myleene Klass business - where the police said they didn't tell her a knife was an offensive weapon, because :-

A statement from South Wales Police said: “Chief Constable Peter Vaughan did not make any reference to “security issues” during his interview with the Police Review reporter. As a result we have requested a retraction of the inaccuracy in its next edition.

and to make absolutely sure they got the message :-

“We do not wish to comment any further in relation to this matter.”

But the Telegraph doesn't let it end there, it says:-

Chris Herbert, editor of Police Review, said no letter requesting a retraction had been received from the force.

He added: “We don’t go around making up quotes. He (Mr Vaughan) said he had security concerns and his particular concerns were around going shopping to his local supermarket.”

Mr Herbert added: “We are not making any judgment on whether that is right or wrong, or good or bad. That is what he (Mr Vaughan) told us and that is what we reported.

He's right, reporters are there to report, not pass judgement - at least they should be.

Oops!

Following on from the ECHR ruling regarding section 44 Stop and Search and Human Rights (read it in full here) this latest reported UK High Court ruling probably isn't good news for either the security forces or the police - because they know there have been incidences of children carrying really horrible things that can hurt not only children but also grown ups.

The stop and search of 11-year-old twins at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp was unlawful, Kent police have admitted at London's High Court.

The twins, referred to as E and T, were searched while at a demonstration against Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in August 2008

Officers searched the twins on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion" they might be carrying prohibited articles

The police admitted that officers at the scene had misapplied legislation.

It sounds very similar to the over-enthusiasm of those who confiscated cameras of onlookers at Sandringham over Christmas

A security officer responsible for the Royal Family said police were wrong to confiscate cameras from members of the public gathered to see them.

... and it didn't happen quite like they say either :-

People watched the royals go to and from the St Mary Magdalene church in Sandringham, Norfolk, last Sunday when police looked after (my bold) their effects.

Nobody "looked after" anything, so reporters shouldn't try to spin it that way.

People had their cameras and phones-capable-of-taking-pictures taken away from them. They had their property temporarily confiscated. They had no choice but to hand them over to the Police - and this was on the one day of the year that the Sandringham Estate relaxes the no-photography rules - because it's Christmas.

Their cameras were then sealed in plastic bags and guarded by Police to make absolutely sure they couldn't be used. It says so in the Mail here and here.

And in case you think the Mail was being a bit over-enthusiastic in it's reporting, Amateur Photographer also carries a report - here.

Myleene was mistaken.

Myleene Klass hit the weekend headlines by saying she was told by police that waving a kitchen knife at an intruder in her garden was illegal - because a knife is an offensive weapon.

Some people have pointed out that for the law to work such a weapon has to be waved about in a public place, and a kitchen doesn't count, and even if it did it would mean that anybody whose kitchen faces the pavement could be locked up every time they chop carrots in full view of passer's by.

Anyhow, it looks as if Myleene must have been mistaken, because according to the BBC a spokeswoman for Police said

"at no point" were any warnings given

In case nobody noticed that little phrase it's repeated at length a bit later

a statement from Hertfordshire police said: "Officers spoke to reassure the home owner, talked through security and gave advice in relation to the importance of reporting suspicious activity immediately to allow officers to act appropriately."

It added: "For clarification, at no point were any official warnings or words of advice given to the home owner in relation to the use of a knife or offensive weapon in their home." "

And again, in another article.

She was, according to her spokesman, later warned by police officers that carrying an "offensive weapon" was illegal in her own home. The allegation is vehemently denied by Hertfordshire Police

and just to be sure, the same article repeats itself a bit, and fleshes it out a bit, to make the point more effectively

And for the record Hertfordshire Police say they didn't tell Klass off at all about her knife-waving.

"Officers spoke to reassure the home owner, talked through security and gave advice in relation to the importance of reporting suspicious activity immediately to allow officers to act appropriately," says a spokeswoman.

"For clarification, at no point were any official warnings or words of advice given to the home owner in relation to the use of a knife or offensive weapon in their home."

So there you have it. All the media and blogging fuss was for nothing - because it didn't happen.

The BBC doesn't say why, or how, Myleene might have been confused and they don't say she made it up, or maybe she imagined it, or maybe she was hearing things. But it's absolutely clear that Myleene Klass was not told it is illegal to stand in her kitchen waving a carving knife at a potential intruder she can see through the window.

Maybe the Telegraph will edit the story from last Friday to make sure it's right.

Myleene Klass, the broadcaster and model, brandished a knife at youths who broke into her garden – but has been warned by police that she may have acted illegally.

and Chris Grayling will have to backtrack

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "This incident just shows why things are still very confused on this issue and why we need a change in the law."

Jack Straw and the Police

Jack Straw thinks the Police are lazy and actually prefer to spend their time indoors, where they can keep themselves nice and warm whilst filling in a few forms that, he says, take no more than an hour or so.

Mr Straw thinks the Police are undisciplined, and Mr Johnson agrees with him. Mr Straw is, at present, the Justice Secretary and Mr Johnson the Home Secretary.

Apart from the fact that Mrs R remembers what Jack Straw was like as a student, she also thinks that, before making such a careless public criticism, he would do well to find out what's happening in the real world and what real people think of policies that are imposed from on high. His criticism could do more to alienate and undermine the authority of decent and hard working Police than almost anything else he and his colleagues have done in the last few years.

Do either Mr Straw or Mr Johnson think imposed "targets" make themselves up, all on their own without human intervention? Doesn't it cross their minds, even for a fleeting moment, that their own departments are responsible for keeping the Police indoors. It's the multitude of government bean counters, quota hunters and target seekers who keep the Police chained to their chairs, not electric fires and coffee cups.

Here's one place he could have looked, which gives a list of Police targets for 2010, they're shared with the world by Inspector Gadget - dated 28th December, four days before Mr Straw launched his broadside.

I quote :-

Here are the targets for my team in 2010.

1. The number of Detected Crimes per officer, measured against the other teams (supposedly dropped; still around with a vengeance)

2. The amount of overtime spend, measured against the other teams (ignore everything towards the end of a shift)

3. The number of annual Appraisals submitted on time (dash through a ‘cut & paste’ session to meet the deadline)

4. The amount of violent crime in the area, measured against other Divisions, regardless of location (arrest for D&D as instructed)

5. The number of officers who complete the Diversity Training packages in time (apparently I can take a pay cut if this is not done).

6. The amount of time we take to submit road accident reports, measured against the other teams (accuracy would be better but….)

7. The amount of time we take to submit domestic violence reports, measured against the other teams (as above)

8. The amount of time I take to submit personnel paperwork (the personnel department do what exactly?)

9. The number of days taken off sick by my team, measured against a ‘analytical product’ from somewhere.

10.The number of Customer Service cold-calls I make and the number of Customer Service forms handed out by my team.

11. I must have a Diversity & Performance Meeting, every week, with every officer, and submit the minutes within 7 days of each meeting. These meetings are to be held individually, not as a team, and must cover 1 to 10 above.

Now Mrs R can do basic calculations and basic time keeping, and she's fairly confident that if she had to do all this stuff as well as ordinary policing (which she doesn't because she has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Police Force) she's fairly sure it would take up quite a bit of time.

Mrs R isn't at all sure she'd appreciate a "cold call" from the Police, she's fairly sure she'd put the phone down thinking it was a hoax!

She's very intrigued to know why every Police Officer has to have a "Diversity and Performance" meeting each week - does this mean that each officer has their own 'diversity' targets to meet, and can be told off if they fail to have ticked all the right boxes? Surely they don't have to either arrest or stop and search a given number of people who fit certain profiles, or make sure the number are balanced to give a 'fair' ethnic mix?

To think there was a time when the Police were reacting to or trying to prevent crime - irrespective of who was the perpetrator - and to keep communities safe.

If they were able to do this today then potential thugs such as this "child" from Croydon might be under control, kept ther by proper 'community policing' - instead of having his tag removed by magistrates who decided it was pointless!

P.S.
It's worth reading the comments beneath Insp Gadget's original post here

How many police officers does it take to control a bus queue?

Precisely how many Police it takes to control a bus queue is uncertain, but it includes a PCSO who was originally supervising the queue and :-

Local safer neighbourhood teams, safer transport teams and police officers from Bromley, Lewisham and Greenwich were all drafted in to deal with the mob.

The Met’s dog unit and territorial support group were also called to the scene.

It all started when students going home after a day's hard work at Orpington College were told they couldn't get on a bus because it was full. Some of them thought it would be a good idea to :-

... force their way onto the bus, kicking the front and back doors.

Unfortunately

The violence quickly escalated and a 25-year-old PCSO sustained a cut above his left eye.

and

Two other police officers were also struck during the incident.

and then,

The high street was shut for around an hour while officers fought running battles with the teenagers.

Mrs Rigby was interested to read the comments beneath the article in the Newshopper (thanks to Ambush Predator), including this from a bus driver,

I am a regular driver of route 51, it does not surprise me at all what happened in Orpington High St. on Tuesday. We are subjected to a barrage of verbal abuse from the time we start until we finish and we would get physically assaulted if we were not protected by an assault screen. This abuse is usually because of fare disputes, but often it is because the bus is full and we can't let any more people on. As a bus driver we are legally responsible for the safety of the bus and if it were involved in an accident and found to be overloaded we would definitely be sacked, could lose our PCV licence and could be fined or even jailed.

Arguments also occur frequently about baby buggies, we can only carry 2 unfolded in the disabled bay and 1 folded in the luggage rack, why don't young mums ever walk anywhere with their babies any more? They are amongst the most foul mouthed when we refuse them entry!

We get sworn at on a daily basis because we refuse people entry who are carrying pots of paint and inflammible liquids and people seem to think we are exempt from traffic jams and swear at us for being late, usually implying that we have been sitting in the canteen.

When the buses are turned because of late running despite the blinds clearly stating the destination and the in bus information announcing the destination, we are again verbally abused.

The 51 is actually no worse than any other route in London as I sometimes drive other routes. Fortunately I don't have many years to go before I can retire and get away from what is now a stressful and un-satisfying job.

From students, who clearly have plenty of spare time after college, there is this

wer d future so wen ur old well b der...

and this

excusee mee i dnt kno where all dis story is coming from nd i dnt kno y ppl r over exagerrating nd gettin scared chattin rubbish about orpington college students. i am a student dere nd dats not even how it happened IT WAS THE POLICE CAUSING A SCENE. nd to dat fed dat got hurt good 4 him he deserved it. all u old ppl dat live in orpington y u gettin shook 4 did n e wun touch you? NO so shut up. any way freeeeeeee da ppl dat got knickd it was'nt ur fault dese feds r gettin xcited coz dere in uniform. nd ppl if ur scared STAY IN UR HOUSE. nd stop tellin stories like u woz dere frm beggining FOOLSS

In response to concerns about the quality of teaching there is this,

Orpington college have grammar exams in place when you first apply and actually go out of their way to make sure that students who have problems with their English and grammar recieve special help. Whether or not they accept this help is another story.

But it would appear that some students have their own special reason for attending college,

i had good reason to further my edercation at orpington: free gym, ema, socialising and to learn..

Mrs Rigby is delighted to know that the main reason this young person wanted to go to the college was because it has a gym, because the government Rigby Family would pay them £30 a week Educational Maintenance Allowance so they can build some nice muscles, (especially irritating because Junior Rigby is still waiting for this year's student loan to appear) so that when they spend time with their friends they don't look too puny. Then, in their spare time, they might be able to relax study learn to spell.

Mrs Rigby thinks students like these will, presumably, be the ones that nice Lord Mandelson wants to give prior right to a University place, over and above any student who has had the misfortune to have been brought up to behave decently and to have attended a school that makes them work hard.

From the Mail

Middle-class pupils face being bumped off prestigious university courses under plans to give youngsters from poor homes an A-level 'head start', it emerged yesterday.

Unveiling a ten-year blueprint for universities, Lord Mandelson declared that published or predicted A-level grades would not be enough to win places at leading universities.

and this is what Lord Mandy says,

'What we are saying is that nobody should be disadvantaged or penalised on the basis of the families they come from, of school they attended ...

It sounds to Mrs Rigby that this scheme does disadvantage and penalise students, on the basis of the families they come from and the school they attend, which of course isn't what he intends to do - or does he?

It might be a good job that he might be out of a job in a few months.