Double standards - where's the justice?

A little belated, I know, but I'm on holiday...

Joey Barton has been handed a 12 match ban for his behaviour in QPR's game against Manchester City. In that game, there was an "altercation" with Carlos Tevez, leading to the QPR captain being sent off. After being shown the red, he then kicked out at Sergio Aguero, and then looked like he wanted to take on Vincent Kompany and Mario Balotelli.

His fellow professionals (some now ex-professionals) have questioned the length of the ban. Surprisingly, some have said that the action taken is too harsh.

Whether or not the ban is harsh, had Barton been in the stands instead of on the pitch, the treatment would have been very different. 

At the very least, he would have been ejected from the stadium. His details would have been taken down, and it is likely that the club would have given him a three match ban from entering the stadium, or if he was an away supporter, his details passed on to his own club, who could then ban him from attending home games for the same length of time.

It's likely that the ejection would follow an arrest, however, either for the violent behaviour, or for a public order offence at the very least. The fan could then be facing the courts, and a potential prison sentence.

Following this, the fan would then be subject to a Football Banning Order, which doesn't just prevent them from entering a football stadium, but from being within a designated area for a designated time period before and after a game. An FBO can last for a minimum of 3 years, up to 10 years, if the fan is sent to prison.

On top of that, fans subjected to an FBO are required to surrender their passports if there is a major tournament, or if their club is involved in playing football outside of the UK. If they wish to travel abroad, say for a holiday, then they need to ask the police for permission.

If Barton remains a QPR player, and especially if he keeps the captaincy, I would expect him to serve his ban from the sidelines, physically at the games, to lend his team mates his support. There is nothing preventing him from entering a football stadium during his ban.

His actions, which would be seen as criminal had he been a fan, have not been treated proportionately. In that respect, and like so many other professional footballers over the years, his conduct has been dealt with in-house, and without the intervention of the criminal law.

Given that he is supposed to be representing his club, and that his behaviour is seen by millions, should the fact that he is a man in a privileged position, earning a lot of money, mean that he is treated outside of the law? If players are supposed to be role models, then should they not be treated in the same way as fans, to set an example?

Football Banning Orders & the Back Door

Football Banning Orders (FBO) are serious business. They don't just prevent those convicted of football related offences from attending matches. They include a requirement to report to a police station with your details, including your passport details. You are not allowed to leave the country without permission if there's a match or tournament taking place. Anyone subjected to an FBO who wants to go on holiday during the Euros, for example, will need to ask the police for permission, and if it's not granted, appeal to their local magistrates. Making an FBO therefore has a huge effect on the civil liberties of convicted football supporters.

The purpose behind an FBO is preventative; it's there to stop future disorder, and is therefore subject to a two stage test. Pass both, and you're banned. Firstly, it has to be a specified offence contained within a Schedule in the Football Supporters Act 1989.

If it meets that criteria, then the judge has to be satisfied that the FBO would prevent further disorder.

This may seem wooly, but it gives judges the scope to exercise some common sense, and apply FBOs only where they are applicable (see Boggild v Ors v R [2011] EWCA Crim 1928).

FBOs are not a means of punishing offenders. They will already be punished in their sentences, after all.

However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal in Doyle & Ors v R [2012] EWCA 995, has highlighted an anomaly in the provisions. At the end of the judgment, Hughes LJ pointed out that;

"If non-custodial sentences had been passed, then conditions could have been attached to either community orders or suspended sentences, and the conditions would then no doubt also have served as effective punishment (at paragraph 27)."

Whilst conditions can be attached to an FBO giving specific restrictions, the court must find that the criteria for making an FBO are met before these can be given. If they are not, the offender is sentenced to a custodial sentence, and that is the end of the matter.

However, if the conditions are not met where the offence does not cross the custody threshold, or the judge finds it appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence, the court can impose conditions that have the effect of restricting the civil liberties as part of their punishment, even if the offence does not meet the criteria for an FBO.

This can lead to serious restrictions on the movement of supporters who have been convicted of minor offences that may not be connected with a football match itself, but were committed at or around the time of a game.

How can it be right that those guilty of a minor offence be subjected to Draconian measures just because they are a football fan, when those who commit more serious offences are not subject to such restrictions?

Do other member of society have their civil liberties interfered with as much as football fans? Whilst it is possible to prevent someone who commits an affray, for example, from entering a town centre on a Friday night, it would be interesting to see just how many revellers are subjected to such conditions compared to those who are subject to FBOs or other such restrictions as football fans.

Unwelcome visitors - Part four

Yesterday saw Leicester City make the long trip to Ipswich. We arrived by car, parked, and headed straight to the town centre to find somewhere where we could have a civilised drink and a sandwich.

Being a City fan, the only places that would allow us in were coffee shops. We were not allowed to use any of the local pubs. Some had signs, others had door staff. If we wanted a beer, or a glass of wine, we were allowed to use a particular pub near the station, which was in the opposite direction from which we had walked. This may or may not have been at the insistence of the police, but once an establishment says that it doesn't want a particular group in there, as long as they're not being discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic), then it is the right of the owners or management of an establishment to exclude them. Pubs and bars are private property; if I can stop people walking into my house from off of the street, then pub management can stop football fans who have travelled 124 miles from going in.

This is not unusual for football fans, especially those who travel in colours, or in large groups, both of which indicate travelling supporters. I've known groups of friends (young and male), who have had to show ID proving they're not local, just to enjoy a pre-match beer.  Considering we have been to many towns and cities over the years, and have shared pre-match drinking facilities without any trouble, I find it disheartening that some places feel the need to segregate supporters before the match has even kicked off. This not only assumes that fans are thugs waiting to kick off, but it encourages media stereotypes of football fans with those who are not fans themselves. Measures like this also widen divisions between supporters, and will not ultimately the game by encouraging integration, which will in turn lead to fewer clashes between fans.

Of course, steps like this are very easily circumvented, which makes a mockery of such moves. Me and the Hubby don't wear colours, and unless it's a pub that's practically on the doorstep of a football stadium, we are never questioned. We look like an ordinary couple out shopping for the day.

Not all fans live in the town or city that their team is based in, and would have legitimate ID to show this. Asking people where they are from does not prevent mixed groups of fans mingling.

Larger groups can split into smaller groups, and gain admission without arousing suspicion.

Potential troublemakers are well aware of the ways in which they can get around an "away fans not welcome" policy. All it does is exclude fans who like to wear club merchandise, and from experience are the least likely to be hooligans, and those groups who haven't yet worked out how not to get the attention of the door staff.  Yet again, it's the innocent majority who are treated like potential criminals because of the few.

Football; policing the costs

Ever since Wigan Athletic challenged Greater Manchester Police over costs of policing its games, police authorities have been limited to the areas surrounding stadia, known as the footprint.

A brief report looking at the incidents of crime in areas surrounding football grounds has been published, but the full research carried out by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science has not (or had not at the time of writing). It's findings, according to ACC Andy Holt, indicate that football clubs should be responsible for paying for policing, in his opinion. This seems to be a strange opinion, considering that Football Banning Orders are on the decrease, as is the number of fans arrested at games.

The research has taken 5 stadia, out of the 92 professional clubs, and has analysed crimes on a match day compared with non-match days. Based on the information analysed, incidents of public disorder, violence, and theft increase when there is a match taking place, and football clubs, who have pushed the problems away from their own back yard, should be made to pay for it.

So why should football clubs, and ultimately the fans, face these increased costs?

As noted above, the problems cited above, and which were more common place decades ago, have been moved elsewhere. Were it not for these football matches taking place, these thugs would not be in the area, and so it should be the game that funds the cost of policing, not taxpayers who have no interest in the sport.

This seems to be the only argument in favour, however in the absence of any data or detailed information relating to this research, there are far too many questions.

Which stadia were used in this study? Are we looking at grounds based in city centres, where there are actually more people in the town for the football, and the increase in numbers cannot just be attributed to shoppers? Or do they include grounds that are further away from town and city centres, where there would be very few people in the area other than on a match day? Isn't it logical that crime rates would increase where there are a crowd, regardless of the event?

Geographically, are these clubs with a lot of local derbies, or are these clubs that have few rivals? This would surely have an impact on the crime figures, as would the impact on neighbouring clubs in the area, including non-league clubs etc.

What level of attendance are we looking at? Are these venues popularly supported clubs, or are they teams with fewer fans attending?

It would also be useful to know how much crime is reported to have increased by; are we talking about a significant increase, or is it a small shift? Is this why the full data has not been released yet?

How do these figures compare with other sporting events? Is it really the case that rugby or cricket matches take place without any crimes being committed? Further, how do these figures compare with other entertainment events, such as concerts or festivals? Will the police be seeking to recover costs from the organisers of Glastonbury or Download, for example?

Even if crime levels do increase, how do we know that these are direct result of football? Just because a fight breaks out between two drunken football fans, can it really be said that it is a football problem, and not a drink-related problem, which reflects society as a whole, and not a small proportion of it? Who would foot the bill if there was a football related pub brawl involving two sets of supporters watching a game on the TV, yet was taking place at the other end of the country? Will it be attributed to the club hosting a game in that town or city? Will the resources be available to go through every incident to determine if a problem is the fault of that football club, as the clubs will surely be challenging any demand for costs?

Do the figures only deal with crimes reported? Do we know how many convictions were made? Does increased police presence encourage people to report offences that they would not normally bother to report if there are fewer officers about?

How serious are these crimes, and were they dealt with through the courts, or by way of cautions and fixed penalty notices, where offenders are more likely to accept the charges against them, than risk proving their innocence in front of magistrates or juries?

It is interesting to see theft cited in the little information released. Crowds attract opportunist thieves, whether it be pick-pockets, or breaking into cars, and perpetrators may not even be attending the game. Is this not a case of criminals taking advantage of a situation? Why should football clubs, and fans, be held to account for this, which again is a reflection on society, not the sport itself?

I would argue that violent crimes and public disorder would still take place, even if there were no football matches. Organised football crime is a symptom of a part of society, and those who do take part would only find another excuse for behaving the way that they do. The behaviour seen on city and town centres on Friday or Saturday night, for example, show that this is not just confined to football. If the police are able to charge for incidents that take place 3km away from a football ground, will they be expecting the same from pub and nightclub owners?

Where exactly do we draw the line? Will 3km be enough? Will that not just push any problems elsewhere, and the next thing police will be asking for is to extend the boundaries further? 6km? 10km? 100km?

Crime is a problem that affects the whole of society. Targeting football at a time when football related crime is supposedly going down, and funding to police authorities is being cut seems suspiciously like taking advantage of a cash cow. Are football clubs being used to make up shortfalls in money that would allow busy city centres to have a more visible police presence, something which shoppers and residents have been asking for for years, and not because of football? The current economic climate has seen increases in street robberies; I would not be surprised to see shoplifting on the increase. People want greater police on patrol to give them reassurance.

The report, and the comments by ACC Holt, fail to mention the increasing number of games that are deemed 'police free'. Can clubs claim back any of the levies that they currently pay for policing against these, if they can be charged more costs for other games?

Hundreds of thousands of people attend football matches. A very small proportion commit any kind of crime. In my own experiences, I have seen very little trouble at football matches, certainly nothing that warrants the number of police present at some games, let alone increasing numbers. Isn't it time the majority of us can be trusted to be left to our own devices, than being constantly monitored? Surely the police know who the main instigators of trouble are, and should be dealing with those, not football fans as a whole?

Football clubs, at the end of the day, are not responsible for the behaviour of the fans. They can take steps to try to prevent disorder inside their stadia, and they can eject and ban anyone guilty of football related crimes, as can the courts. But how can a football club be expected to control the behaviour of a few fans intent on causing trouble, especially when it is not in the close proximity of the stadium?

Are the police using this as a means of introducing more ways to control fans? Powers already include the use of "bubble matches", as fans won't be able to go off on a folly, and cause mayhem. There are other measures open to the police to prevent people from entering areas, and there are powers that enable the police to turn travelling fans away from towns and cities. 

Clubs, and the law-abiding majority of fans, should not be expected to bear the costs of the few. Football generates over £1b in tax revenue, as it is, and clubs already pay additional sums to cover the cost of policing. By asking fans, who have already paid for policing through their Council taxes, and in the price of their tickets, to pay even more towards these costs, are we seeing the beginning of a situation where fans are priced out of the game? Is this another means of controlling what fans can or cannot do? If it costs too much to attend a game, then fans will stop going, consequently negating the need to increase the use of police resources.

Today's story raises far too many questions that as a football fan, I want answering before the subject can be properly debated. 5 out 92 clubs seems an awfully small sample from which to conclude that crime increases when a football match takes place; surely, having raised questions, there should be a fuller study conducted to see if these findings, on limited data, are indicative of a worrying trend, or if these are merely anomalies.

What can be done? Maybe if offenders were given higher financial penalties to cover some of the costs of additional policing, it may act as a deterrent. This would not only apply to football related crime, but crime in general. There would be difficulties as to how we enforce payment of such penalties, especially if offenders have little or no money themselves, but it would be fairer than making innocent people pay for a service they have little need for.

Unwelcome visitors - Part three

So it continues...

We were given no warning, although past experience, where Barry Fry said us Leicester City fans had a "reputation", leading to an early kick off, the group I travelled with decided to get in Peterborough early for Saturday's game. As an added bonus, it enabled us to get cheaper train tickets. Bonus.

We left Leicester station at 8.15am; there was one officer from the BTP monitoring things, but very few football fans about. The train trip was quiet, reflecting the fact most fans would prefer a lie in, and take a later train.

Arriving into Peterborough almost an hour later, we were greeted by a line of Cambridgeshire Constabulary's finest, barking "Are you Leicester fans?" at almost every person alighting the train. Anyone who is a regular traveller would know that the idea would be to direct the travelling football fans to one pub, which would end up being overcrowded and noisy. There would also be a possibility that once in, we would not be able to leave the premises until the police told us to, which would be at a time of their choosing.

As far as we were concerned, we didn't want to be shoehorned into a pub we didn't want to go to, especially seeing as one of our group was a Peterborough fan!

We ignored the questions, and left the station. All we wanted to do was to have some breakfast, and then a few quiet drinks in the pub of our choosing, and there was nothing to say that we could not do this.

We arrived at the pub of choice; there was nobody on the door, and no signs outside advising us that access would be restricted to one set of supporters or the other. We went to the bar, ordered our breakfasts, and drinks, and took our seats. The staff didn't seem concerned by our presence, and didn't ask us if we were there for the football, or indeed, which team we supported.

It wasn't long after we'd sat down that two police constables came over, and asked if we were Leicester fans, as one of the group was wearing a University of Leicester hoodie. The officers were told that most of us were, but we were with a Peterborough fan. This was when we were told that we were in the designated home fans pub. I explained that it was news to us. The officers accepted our explanation that we were a mixed group of fans, and advised us that we may have to move later if our presence was causing a breach of the peace. Apart from the hoodie, there was no indication that any of us were from Leicester, so we decided to stay.

However, we were quickly approached by a sergeant, who told us that we would have to leave the pub. We were Leicester fans, and we weren't allowed in. He would not accept any explanation that this information had not being communicated to any fans, neither would he accept that we were law abiding citizens, or that we were with a friend who, according to the sergeant, was allowed in the pub. He didn't actually address me, just the male members of the group; I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted!

I tried to explain to the sergeant that we had ordered food and drink, and that given that it was 9.30am, and the pub was largely empty, we should be given the chance to consume our breakfasts, after all, there was no breach of the peace, no breach of the peace was imminent, and that it was private property, and the pub manager had not asked us to leave.

This seemed to annoy the sergeant, because he had no answer to this. He threw me a dirty look, and said "I'm not happy with this, I'm going to have to call this one in". He left with his phone to his ear.

We didn't seem him again until after our breakfasts had arrived. This time, he turned up with Leicestershire police's football liaison team. These guys travel to every away game, and are a good point of contact if we are having problems with other fans, stewards, or even police officers. They also help to advise the local police teams on the supporters at the games. I am also lucky to know some of them from my role on the Fans Consultative Committee.

So it was the icing on the cake when he came over, not to tell us to leave, but to have a bit of chat about my choice of brekkie! This was after they had been told that there had been no problems in the pub, or with any patrons.

We stayed in the pub until we left for the game, shortly after 2pm. We saw other Leicester fans in there. Amazingly (roll eyes), there was no trouble, or aggravation. Everyone seemed to be having a quiet drink. We did notice that there were fewer people in there than in previous seasons. Outside, it looked as though there were more police officers in the street than was necessary, and several vans parked up and down the street. It seemed like complete overkill when there was nobody causing any trouble anywhere. 

No doubt the constabulary will argue that their presence was responsible for this, however, I would like to put my faith in the ability of the majority of fans to behave themselves. We have taken over 8,000 fans to Nottingham this year, with fewer than 0.1% of fans arrested on the day. We went to Norwich, after being branded "high risk", and there was no trouble. There was no reason to turn Peterborough town centre into a mini-police state, where law abiding citizens are told where they can or cannot go.

Further, splitting fans into designated pubs encourages divisiveness. Yes, there are a minority of fans who want to cause trouble, but I suspect these are the sort of people who would be spoiling for a fight even if football didn't exist. Football clubs talk about encouraging families, or minorities to their stadia, but how can people feel safe when some city and town centres are overrun with police? Does this not say that hooliganism is still a huge problem, when the opposite is true?

I dream of a day when I can go where I want, when I want, even if I follow a football club.

London Road, Peterborough
Taken with a steady hand, despite alcohol consumption

Clare's Law - my thoughts

The family of Clare Wood has campaigned for a scheme similar to Sarah's Law, whereby people can find out if their potential partner has a history of domestic violence.

In principle, this sounds like a good idea; anything that prevents one human being abusing another should be applauded. If any lives can be saved through the implementation of such a scheme, it will be hailed as a success.

There are also a number of reasons, and assumptions, why this scheme may not be the panacea to domestic violence.

• Those who have abused their previous partners will be known to the police

The first assumption is that those who abuse their partners are convicted for these offences.

Victims of domestic violence do not report these crimes. They make excuses for their partner's behaviour. Even when they do call the police, they may retract their statements, or refuse to speak out against them. So having been reported, the chances of securing a conviction may be slim.

The scheme does not take into account the potentially thousands of men and women who physically, verbally, and mentally abuse their partners, who have never been reported to the police. So your perfect new boy/girlfriend could still be a potential bully; you just won't know about it until it happens.

• The right charges were brought in the first place

This can work either way.

Somebody who attacks their partner the once, could be charged with an offence relating to domestic violence.

Another person who has been regularly violent to their partner(s) may be convicted of a violent offence not specifically related to domestic violence, say for example, if the victim has been unwilling to assist, or if the offender has agreed to plea to a such a charge.

Will details of convictions, such as the whys and wherefores, be included with any request? Or will all offences against the person be disclosed?

There is a danger that a person with a history of fighting after a few too many beers in the pub could be branded a wife beater by a well-meaning but misinformed family. A list of convictions tells us one thing but it does not paint a full picture.

• A leopard never changes his spots

There is a dangerous precedent that once convicted of violent offences, an offender could always be seen to be a potential murderer at worst, or abusive partner at best. No credit is given for any programmes that may have changed an offender's behaviour for the better. Or  that the circumstances that were present at the time of offending have changed, enabling an offender to alter their own behaviour. 

Again, with no details on how and why someone has been convicted, how can an informed decision on the potential danger posed by that person be fairly assessed?

Further, there's an implicit assumption that a person who has never been violent towards their partner in the past couldn't possibly find themselves in a situation where they begin to abuse the one person that they claim to love. A clear search could lead to complacency from the searching party, who may then find themselves in a very dangerous situation.

• Informed potential victims will give that person a wide berth

The most dangerous assumption to make is that armed with a list of convictions against a new partner, the now suspecting victim can walk away from potential harm.

But what happens if you're already in love with someone when you found out they beat their last other half black and blue? Would you really walk away?

Or would you risk it? After all, s/he hasn't laid a finger on you - yet.

This doesn't even begin to take into account we do not know how many couples have abusive relationships. There are women, and men, already refusing to walk away from a situation where they are fully aware of what their partner is capable of. Love is a powerful emotion.

So why is this scheme going to make any difference?

Are we going to see people vetting their first dates for any criminal past? Surely this is the only way one can be protected? Isn't it? Will dating websites be asking for CRB checks on all their members? Should single men and women be requesting them, just on the off-chance?

Or are we merely bolting the stable door after the horse has done one?

• The invasion of privacy

What's to stop me from going into a police station and telling the officer at the desk that the bloke from down the road, who I don't actually like, is a new boyfriend? I could then use this information to drag his name through the mud, which would be a great thing because I don't actually like him.

Well, nothing. I guess

What may surprise some readers is that I can do this anyway. Even without Clare's Law, the police have the power to disclose this information to me, if I present myself as a potential victim. 

So what exactly are we gaining? Apart from undermining the civil liberties of those people who have a past from which they are trying to move away from?

• So what should be done?

Education is key. Resources could be better used in empowering victims to report crimes against them to the police. Many victims know that the treatment they receive is wrong, but lack the strength to do anything about it. Maybe support is needed, as well as educating them.

It may also be that a lack of faith in the criminal justice system doesn't help. The media is quick to report cases where the police or the CPS has failed, but we don't hear of the many victims who have seen their abusers dealt with appropriately. I'm not saying that authorities don't get it wrong; far from it. But we do need to see more success stories.

That doesn't absolve the police and the CPS from their duties in protecting the public. The question shouldn't be "what information can I get to protect me", but "what are the authorities going to do to protect me"?

There is no formula for stopping domestic violence. I have every sympathy with the Wood family, and I wouldn't wish the fate of Clare on anyone. They may take comfort in believing that she would have been safe if she had known her killer had a history of violence towards women. But I have seen too many cases where even armed with such information, women have accepted abusive behaviour on far too many occasions, believing that the last time really will be the last. I may be being cynical here, but I can't see this scheme making much difference to domestic violence in the UK.

Trial by Facebook?

I've been busy, and write this post a little late, however the general theme is a recurring one that I witness on social networking sites, albeit not as extreme as the example given.

My local police force is keen to promote itself on social networking sites. This is a good thing, it gives the public the chance to engage with the police on a level and in a way that feels more comfortable with them.

As part of their postings, the force posts links to news stories. One story concerned the arrest of a woman on suspicion of child neglect. The child had been removed, and the woman released on bail pending further enquiries.

I became aware of it when a few friends shared the link. At first the comments were harmless enough ("how could someone do that to their child"). Some questioned why the woman had been bailed, and the misunderstandings over bail are a blog post in their own right, so won't be dealt with here.

As the thread developed, two different types of comment were being added to the story.

The first concerned the woman herself. They started along the lines of "I know her, this isn't the first time this has happened". These then developed into further allegations, going into explicit detail. Some comment makers named the woman in question.

The second type, following on from the first, were from potential vigilante types, who gave details of the type of "justice" that should be doled out in the circumstances.

All of this, as far as I could tell, was based on rumour and conjecture.

Social networking sites are brilliant places to gossip. Facebook is great for finding out that the popular kids at school are now fugly. Or that the school bullies are now fugly. It's like a virtual pub, or supermarket, or school playground, where groups gather to spend their time idly speculating about people they shouldn't give a hoot about. But whereas face to face gossip can remain insular, writing allegations on the internet can have far wider implications.

It's very easy to cross the line when criminal investigations are taking place. We've already seen the consequences of jurors using the internet to find out about defendants. We have no idea whether the woman in this incident is guilty of any wrongdoing or not. If she is guilty, who's to say she won't admit it, and be dealt with in the appropriate manner? If she says she's not guilty, rumour-mongering could potentially damage the chances of securing any conviction.

Further, it would be hoped that this woman, if she has been cruel to her child, will be dealt with by the courts. It may be that many have no confidence in the system following the Baby P incident, however, many cases like this escape the public attention. Why? Because they are being dealt with properly, and children are being saved from dangerous situations. It's sad that the success stories are not reported. There is no excuse for taking matters into your own hands. If there are failings in the system, challenge the system, not the perpetrators. 

There is, of course, the other side to the story; that this woman has done nothing wrong. Or even worse, the Facebook gossipers have named and shamed the wrong person. Maybe there is another mother who shares the same name, who cannot understand why people are avoiding her, or are calling her names. Lives can, and have, been ruined through the making of false allegations, or by having the misfortune of sharing the same name as a criminal.

The link to this story was pulled within a few hours. Hopefully, not too much damage has been done, and the matter can be dealt with in the fairest and most appropriate way.

I would also ask my Facebook friends and Twitter followers to think before posting.

PCSO cut to lead to more arrests?

Leicestershire County Council is reported to be proposing to cut its funding for PCSOs. Around 20 will be relieved of their duties over the next two years, that's apparently a 6th currently employed.

I heard the story on the local radio, and I also heard the comments of Dr Sarah Hill, who is the deputy leader of the Lib Dem council group. She said:

"They have a valuable role in the community helping the police ... They're around the community more than police officers because they don't change ... and they have links with the people".

She went further on the radio interview, saying that PCSOs don't have warrant cards, and will therefore speak to people before wading in, preventing potentially inflammatory confrontations. Or words to that effect.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't police officers also speak to ordinary citizens before throwing their weight around, and using their powers of arrest? Just because they have more powers than the ordinary citizen, or a PCSO, it doesn't mean that they are obliged to use them?

Does it?