Confession time,,,

I hate to have to admit this, but my car is not fitted with Telepathy. It wasn't even an optional extra.

This may cause problems, but being the resourceful chappess that I am, I have resorted to using those little orange, flashy lights to inform other road users of my intentions. You know the ones; the ones that you use to say sorry, or thanks, depending on whether you're cutting someone up, or being allowed to aggressively push in. That's them, the same ones that also allow people to park up in the most stupidest of places to save walking too far from the cash machine, or with the bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape.

Sadly, other road users don't seem to have twigged. Like the woman from down the road, who didn't seem to think that sticking on the left sided flashing light, and pulling into the side of the road meant anything. Even when I stuck the car in reverse, she still didn't twig that I wanted to reverse onto my drive. The lack of Telepathy clearly hindered her progress home, as I was unable to communicate my intentions to her. I was not able to make my manoeuvre, and allow her on her way, seeing as she was practically sitting on the back of my inadequate motor. I can only apologise to her. Well, I could, but it's not worth driving that far to speak to her.

Having said that, if she'd invested in the Clairvoyant extra as well as Telepathy, she would have known exactly what it was I wanted to do. Pfft.

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?

Unwelcome visitors - Part Two

In the 3rd round of this season's FA Cup, my team, Leicester City, were drawn away to local rivals, Nottingham Forest. 8,000 tickets were sold to Leicester fans, however in the days leading up to the game, we were given some "guidance" on where we could and could not go.

Unofficial reports suggest 9 Leicester fans were arrested during the relevant time for this game; that's around 0.11% of the travelling support. I was not able to find out how many of those 9 fans have been subsequently charged with any offence, as I was told that this information was not available.

We are now preparing for a 5th round tie against Norwich City, with fans from both sides confident of reaching the quarter-finals. Leicester City can have a decent away following, and fans were confident that there would be demand for the full 15% allocation we should have been entitled to, which is around 4,200 tickets.

Norwich City's Safety Advisory Group (SAG) has, after acting on police advice, said that we are only entitled to 2,400 tickets.

The reason for this is that Leicester City fans are seen as "high risk". This is all based on two events that took place in February 2008.

The first took place between Leicester City and Norwich City fans on February 16th 2008, after the Norfolk club had lost 4-0 at the then named Walkers Stadium. The second took place a week later on February 23rd 2008, in Earlsdon, a suburb of Coventry, before Leicester's visit to the Ricoh Arena, a good five or so miles away.

The second incident is pretty damning; it was an organised ruck, involving a very large group of men. 36 were eventually convicted for their part, from both sets of fans; 18 Leicester fans were named and shamed in the local press.

The first is slightly more confusing, however. 11 men were given prison sentences, and a further 3 given suspended sentences. Just 2 of those men were Leicester City fans. The rest were Norwich City supporters.

Anyone convicted of a football-related offence is subject to Football Banning Orders (FBO), which prevents them from being within a prescribed area around a football ground for not just the duration of the game, but for the 2 hours preceding and following the game. Furthermore, they must surrender their passports when designated games are played outside of the UK. There are also restrictions on the use of the rail network, and those under an FBO have to seek permission to travel by train from the British Transport Police. 

All those involved in the incidents the Norfolk Constabulary have raised concerns over have FBOs ranging from 5 to 10 years. If any were to turn up to the game, they would be committing a further offence.

Aside from the fact that these incidents happened 4 years ago, if the Norfolk Constabulary have concerns with regards to the safety of law-abiding fans who want to watch the game in peace, then will the Norwich City fans also be subjected to a reduced ticket allocation for this cup tie? After all, their fans are just as, if not more, complicit in any trouble that took place between the two sets of fans.

Or will Norwich fans be sitting in the seats that really should have been allocated to the visitors, whose fans are capable of travelling in large numbers and behaving properly?

Watching football is not a crime, yet the law-abiding majority of fans are still being made to suffer because of a minority who are intent on causing trouble.

Aylestone Meadows - "best and most extensive area of wildlife in Leicester"

Last year, some members of Leicester City Council wanted to build football pitches on part of Aylestone Meadows.

Thankfully, for the residents and visitors to the park, the Planning Department had more sense, and the application was rejected. The pitches will now be built on an old, disused school in the area, a site touted by those opposed to the plans as the most sensible option.

Today, it has been reported in the Leicester Mercury that Aylestone Meadows is home to over 600 species of flora and fauna, including a rare tree, the only one of its kind reported in the world.

It would have been a tragedy to have lost any of these, especially at a site so close to a city centre. It also reinforces, to those few who were ever in doubt, that the right decision was made.

One of the worst arguments against reintroducing standing

In England and Welsh football grounds is that it will see the return of hooliganism.

The latest figures since records relating to arrests at football matches show a decrease not only in those arrested on suspicion of committing an offence, but also in the number of fans currently subject to a Football Banning Order.

The suggestion that standing will automatically lead to an increase in trouble is based on the perception of football around thirty years ago. Since then, the demographic of the fan has changed. Clubs have focused on attracting more affluent (safer?) fans to games. There are more middle-classed families attending matches. There are more women at games. The corporate side of football is seen as a priority at some clubs. There are more people attending matches now than there were in the Eighties, and yet trouble at games is decreasing.

At present, teams in the top two divisions are meant to have all-seater stadia. In the Championship during the period November 2010 - November 2011, two clubs had terracing; Scunthorpe and Peterborough United. Compared with other teams in the Championship, there were fewer arrests at their grounds than at those clubs with all-seater stadia.

Further, arrests in League One and League Two are lower still, where more clubs still have terracing.

On top of that, surveillance at grounds is far superior to the methods at the disposal of the police and clubs thirty years ago. At an induction at the then named Walkers Stadium back in 2002, I was told by a very proud Head of Security that the CCTV cameras could focus in on a spot on a suspect's face, so it would be reasonable to assume that the identification of any troublemaker would be relatively simple, should any trouble ensue in a safe-standing area.

To suggest that I, or my fellow like-minded fans, are potential hooligans is not only factually incorrect, but quite frankly insulting. Watching football is not a crime, even if it is done so from a standing position, and not from a plastic seat.