Gestapo Watch - Association of Chief Police Officers

[TonyGosling]

At last this nest of corruption is itself being turned over. Not since Duncan Campbell's famous interview with James Anderton in 1985 has so much dirt been dug on this Masonic PLC.

Body in charge of UK policing policy is now an £18m-a-year PLC brand
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145581/Body-charge-UK-policin g-policy-18m-year-brand-charging-public-70-60p-criminal-records-check. html

The secret police are watching you
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/feb/10/police -civil-liberties

[TonyGosling]

Did anybody see the Sweeney Film last night? One of the best. The writers were clearly 'going for it' as their groundbreaking drama series, filmed mostly in Hammersmith and West London, was closed down.
Anyway here's that excellent investigative ACPO article in full.

Body in charge of UK policing policy is now an £18m-a-year brand charging the public £70 for a 60p criminal records check
By Jason Lewis
Last updated at 8:21 AM on 15th February 2009

Britain's most powerful police body is being run as a private business with an annual income of around £18million.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which oversees everything from anti-terrorism policy to speed cameras, was last night facing demands that it be disbanded, following a Mail on Sunday investigation into its activities which include:

Selling information from the Police National Computer for up to £70 – even though it pays just 60 pence to access those details.
Marketing ‘police approval’ logos to firms selling anti-theft devices.
Operating a separate private firm offering training to speed camera operators, which is run by a senior officer who was banned from driving.
Advising the Government and police forces – earning £32million of taxpayers’ money in the process.
Employing retired senior officers on lucrative salaries.

Until now, ACPO’s central role in policing has not been questioned as it is seen as an essential, if sometimes controversial, public body writing the rules on police operations as well as campaigning on key issues such as the proposed 90-day detention for terror suspects and the DNA database.

But the organisation is not a public body, nor is it a police trade union or even a campaign group. It is a private company – a self-styled ‘global brand name’ – paid millions of pounds a year by the taxpayer to effectively run the nation’s police forces.

Because ACPO is a private company, members of the public cannot use the Freedom of Information Act to scrutinise its operations. Last night it came under fire from politicians and human rights lawyers, who called for its immediate reform.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, questioned whether ACPO’s role as a company with increasing national powers was ‘legal’. She said: ‘They need to be stopped in their tracks.’

At the centre of the controversy are the services ‘sold’ by ACPO and over which it has a monopoly.

The association is headed by former Sussex Chief Constable Sir Ken Jones, who earns £138,702 a year and receives a further £30,000 in pension contributions on top of his existing police pension.

Its unpaid board includes Sir Hugh Orde, Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, Sir Paul Scott-Lee, West Midlands Chief Constable, and Tim Hollis, Chief Constable of Humberside.

It also employs a number of former high-ranking police officers on lucrative short-term contracts.

Its staff bill is £1.4million a year – which averages out at £66,000 for each of its 21 employees, although that figure also includes pension contributions and retainers paid to former members of staff acting as consultants.

ACPO was set up in 1997, replacing an informal network of police chiefs who decided national policies. It was established as a formal body ‘to deal with growing budgets, the need to sign leases [and] the need to directly employ people’.

In the past two years its influence and public role has expanded to playing a major role in formulating national police policy, advising Ministers and overseeing the development of the National Police Improvement Agency, which runs the controversial DNA database and Police National Computer.

Its annual income from ‘project’ work for the police and Home Office has risen to £15million, from just £1.3million in 2005.


But its growth has taken place without any parliamentary debate and without being subject to public scrutiny, and its decisions are largely taken in secret.

According to its accounts, it earned money from the taxpayer for ‘co-ordination of the national police response to terrorism, organised crime [and] large operations such as the Suffolk prostitute murders’.

It also says it was paid for its involvement in arranging the ‘use of police cells across the country to house prisoners’.

In 2007 ACPO rewrote its statement of purpose adopting ‘a new, more responsive business structure’.


The new document included the assertion that it would ‘continue to develop our business activities to ensure that the ACPO brand name is recognised globally as a mark of excellence in policing’.

It is unclear who decides how much ACPO charges the Home Office and police forces for its activities. Its board members can claim expenses but their salaries are paid by their individual police forces.

As a ‘not for profit’ company it does not pay dividends to its shareholders, but its accounts show a significant annual surplus, which has led to ACPO having £15.8million in assets, including £9.2million ‘cash at bank and in hand’.


Corporate HQ: ACPO's Central London base, close to Scotland Yard

ACPO says this money is to fund future projects, but the accounts show its cash account grew from £6million in 2007 to £9million this year and earned interest of nearly £1.4million over the period.

Boosting this annual surplus are a number of ACPO subsidiaries which sell ‘police’ services. It recently set up ACRO – the ACPO Criminal Records Office – which sells so-called police certificates which reveal whether someone has a criminal record.

Headed by retired Hampshire Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead, who has a £50,000 contract with ACPO, it provides the documents required by people applying for visas to work or live in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Until now visa applicants could obtain these details by making what was known as a ‘subject access request’ to the police. The maximum charge for these requests was £10.

But according to the US Embassy, ACPO approached them and offered to provide their own criminal record certificates. These are now the only documents acceptable for visa applications.

Under the new system, applicants fill out an online form and receive a statement about whether or not they have a criminal record.

According to the National Police Improvement Agency, which runs the Police National Computer, ACPO is charged 60p for each search.

However, ACPO charges the public up to £70 for its ‘premium service’, while its standard service – which takes ten days – costs £35.

Last year ACPO received an income of £197,633 from the service, which is not available from any other agency. It says its charges are reasonable because the service involves ‘additional processing elements including photography processing and a full report prepared for each application’.

Another lucrative ACPO offshoot is ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd. The company, which charges manufacturers to approve their crime-prevention products such as burglar alarms and blast doors, had a turnover of £981,500 last year.

The firm’s accounts show that it made a healthy surplus of £225,000 on that income and paid its directors £107,000.

The firm issues Secured by Design licences and advertises the approved firms’ telephone numbers and other contact details on the ACPO website.

The website says: ‘The company is funded through partnership with companies whose products meet technical standards identified by ACPO.’

Products that meet that standard can display the Secured by Design logo with the wording ‘Police Preferred Specification’.

Richard Childs, former Chief Constable of Lincolnshire, is managing director of ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives and earns £42,500 a year.

ACPO is also involved with Road Safety Support Ltd. According to documents at Companies House, RSS was established last year to ‘provide secretarial support to the ACPO Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee and the Chair of the ACPO Safety Camera Administration Group’.

An independent affiliate of ACPO, the firm also provides expert witnesses to combat ‘loophole’ lawyers attempting to beat speeding offences. It also provides training to speed camera operators.

The chairman of RSS is Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. He was formerly the chairman of ACPO’s roads policing group but stood down following a driving ban after being caught on camera speeding at 90mph.

Mr Hughes, who has claimed that all speed cameras should be hidden and mobile, is not paid by the company.

ACPO said RSS is a non-profit-making private limited company set up to provide support to both Safety Camera Partnerships, which install speed cameras across the country, and the Highways Authorities on ‘a variety of legal and technical issues of road safety’.

Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling last night questioned ACPO’s role, and called for its reform. He said: ‘Is it an external reference group for Home Office Ministers or a professional association protecting senior officers’ interests?

Is it a national policing agency? Is it a pressure group arguing for greater police powers? I am planning to have serious discussions about their role.

‘I was particularly concerned by the Government’s decision to give them a statutory role in senior police appointments. There are real questions to be asked about whether they can carry out all of these roles and I think change might very well be necessary.’

Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, questioned whether ACPO’s role as a company with increasing national powers was legal. She said: ‘It is legally questionable for senior police officers to be running this sort of business.’

She added that police officers’ powers were limited by statute and any increase in those powers had to be approved by Parliament. By increasing its national role and engaging in commercial activities, ACPO could be breaking the law, she said.

Ms Chakrabarti added: ‘ACPO is many things. It advises Government, it sets policing policy, it campaigns for increased police powers, and now we learn it is engaged in commercial activities – all with a rather shady lack of accountability.

‘When they take positions on issues, it is very unclear who is deciding to do so. Our Parliament decided that we do not have a national police force in this country. It is considered anti-democratic to put so much power in one place. This is why we have regional police forces.

‘But ACPO is morphing into a national police force where they all take a single line on holding terror suspects for 42 days or ID cards and individual chief constables aren’t supposed to speak out. None of this should be happening without an Act of Parliament.

‘They need to be stopped in their tracks and there should be a fundamental review of ACPO and all its functions.’

An ACPO spokesman defended the organisation’s activities. He said: ‘ACPO is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest, ACPO leads and co-ordinates the direction and development of the police service nationally.

‘In times of national need ACPO, on behalf of all chief officers, co-ordinates the strategic policing response.

‘ACPO is funded in part by the Government in order to collectively develop advice for them. Project work which ACPO undertakes on behalf of the police service is at the request of the Home Office and goes towards public protection against serious and strategic threats that can only be tackled above force level.

'All funds to ACPO are employed in the interests of public safety and the police service.’

He denied that the organisation was keeping huge amounts of money from public funds in cash in its bank accounts.

He said: ‘All funds from the Home Office are tied to projects to tackle serious and strategic threats on behalf of the police service. As projects can be delivered across a number of years, it follows [our year] end accounts may show a surplus.’


Find this story at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145581/Body-charge-UK-policing-polic y-18m-year-brand-charging-public-70-60p-criminal-records-check.html

[TonyGosling]

It's their role in drawing up Ant-terror POLICY that makes ACPO of so much interest to those questioning the official version of 7/7 and 9/11.

[TonyGosling]

Seems Hugh Orde is about to take over ACPO - without an election.

Testing times for Northern Ireland police when Sir Hugh Orde quits
Sean O'Neill, Crime Editor

The policeman leading the hunt for the Massereene Barracks killers is to step down as head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland within months, The Times has learnt.

Sir Hugh Orde, Chief Constable in Belfast for the past seven years, is the clear front-runner to become the next president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and has circulated a letter to senior colleagues across the country canvassing support.

His imminent departure will leave Northern Ireland's police force looking for new leadership at a time when security in the province is in its most parlous state for more than a decade.

Sir Hugh, who has briefed the Prime Minister this week on the current position, may face pressure to remain in Ulster because of the Massereene killings. But he could be confirmed as the next head of Acpo this week unless another candidate steps forward and triggers an election for the position.

Sir Hugh's deputy, Paul Leighton, will also leave the force in May, when he is due to retire. Because of the inexperience of officers in the next tier, the PSNI will have to look outside Northern Ireland for its new chief constable.

“Hugh is the man to beat for the Acpo post, he is well out in front and it is not clear that anyone is going to stand against him,” a senior police source said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5877704.ece

[TonyGosling]

>>>>>> Flash: Hugh Orde to quit

PSNI police Chief Hugh Orde is to leave his position in the North of Ireland after securing a job in England.

He was announced as the new president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in London today. He quits the PSNI as the British Crown forces face a new wave of militant republicanism.

After seven years in charge of Britain's police force in the North of Ireland, Mr Orde is now expected to leave the PSNI in the autumn.

From Surrey in southeast England, he became chief constable of the PSNI (formerly RUC) in September 2002.

After several interjections into the North's political process, Orde established himself as a controversial and polarising figure. He became synonymous with 'political policing', a strategy of effecting political change through policing actions. This culminated in the infamous 'Stormontgate' police raid on Sinn Fein's offices at the Belfast assembly, ostensibly because of the presence of an 'IRA spy ring'.

His tenure was also marked by failed and bogus prosecutions in the Northern Bank robbery, the death of Belfast man Robert McCartney and the Omagh bomb trials.

He was also condemned by republicans for not doing enough to steer the PSNI away from the oppressive and heavy-handed practices of its predecessor, the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The North's Policing Board said the process of appointing Mr Orde's successor will begin shortly.

Sinn Fein's Alex Maskey said "without doubt" Orde had made "a significant contribution to many of the policing changes we have been part of in recent years".

"However his time has not been without problems. Under his leadership the PSNI have consistently withheld information from inquests and blocked families in their pursuit of the truth and responses to ordinary criminal matters particularly in working class areas has been disappointing.

"We have also recently put on the record our dissatisfaction at the use of extended periods of detention.

"Hugh Orde's departure along with other senior officers who have indicated they are intending to move on, provides an opportunity for the Policing Board, under its new leadership, to put in place a new and dynamic group of officers at the top of the PSNI to manage the next stages of policing transformation which will occur with the transfer of powers.

"That work needs now to be our priority."

http://republican-news.org/

[TonyGosling]

'Secret law' storm as police chiefs ban public from knowing who they arrest: Shock new blanket ban in the wake of Leveson report angers civil liberty groups who condemn threat to democracy
Under new ACPO guidance forces to be banned from naming suspects
The legal risk of incorrect identification will stop the media naming suspects
The police plan for 'secret arrests' is opposed by the Law Commission

By Robert Verkaik and David Ormerod

PUBLISHED: 00:30, 7 April 2013 | UPDATED: 00:31, 7 April 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305177/Secret-law-storm-polic e-chiefs-ban-public-knowing-arrest-Shock-new-blanket-ban-wake-Leveson- report-angers-civil-liberty-groups-condemn-threat-democracy.html

Draconian: The move, which follows a recommendation by Lord Justice Leveson in his report into press standards

Britain's police chiefs are drawing up draconian rules under which the identities of people they arrest will be kept secret from the public.

The move, which follows a recommendation by Lord Justice Leveson in his report into press standards, has been branded an attack on open justice and has led to comparisons with police states such as North Korea and Zimbabwe.

Under current arrangements, police release basic details of a person arrested and in many cases will confirm a name to journalists. But the practice varies from force to force.

Under the new guidance, to be circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), forces will be banned from confirming the names of suspects, even when journalists know the identity of someone who has been arrested.

Without official police confirmation, the legal risks of incorrect identification will prevent the media from publishing the names of suspects.

The police plan for ‘secret arrests’ is being opposed by the Government’s own adviser on law reform, the Law Commission, which believes it is in the interests of justice that the police release the names of everyone who is arrested, except in very exceptional circumstances.

A Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed that, chillingly, many forces have already altered their naming policies in the wake of last year’s Leveson report.

Only two out of 14 forces that spoke to us said they would confirm the identity of a person arrested when a journalist suggested the right name to them.

Yet senior police officers have told this paper that until very recently it was common practice for police forces to confirm the names of people arrested.

More...
Pictured on her first day at work: WPC who tripped on 999 call is now suing her own force for a prang in her Panda car
One down, two to go: Former HBoS chief executive quits new job after damning report demands trio of former directors be BANNED from the City. So what about the other two?


The new practice has already led to one worrying situation in which a well-known celebrity arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the investigation into the Jimmy Savile scandal, cannot be named by the media, although he has been widely identified on the internet.

Trevor Sterling, the lawyer representing Savile’s victims, said that if Savile had been alive today and his arrest had remained secret, many of his victims would have been failed.

Mr Sterling said: ‘It is difficult to strike a balance, but if someone like Savile’s name is not published, victims of sexual abuse would not have the confidence to come forward.’


Silenced: A well-known celebrity arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the investigation into the Jimmy Savile scandal, cannot be named by the media

Padraig Reidy, news editor of Index On Censorship, a civil liberties organisation, said: ‘You can very quickly find yourself in a situation where you have secret arrests. We have a concept of open justice.

'What is being proposed is very scary because if you do not know who has been arrested or why, people can be taken off the streets without anyone knowing and the police would not be accountable or properly scrutinised.

‘This sort of thing happens in other countries. People are arrested, they disappear and no one ever knows why.’

Bob Satchwell, chairman of the Society of Editors, said the change would have a devastating effect on open justice and smacked of the kind of practices associated with ‘banana republics’.

He added: ‘There is nothing in law to say that the name of someone arrested should not be released. If the name is withheld, it fuels speculation, especially through the internet.’

The senior police officer in charge of the new rules told The Mail on Sunday that he had been warned by Britain’s information watchdog, the Information Commissioner, that releasing names could breach the data protection rights of a suspect.

Andy Trotter, chief constable of British Transport Police and the lead officer on media policy for ACPO, said that he disagreed with the Law Commission’s position because it did not take account of the circumstances of a suspect whose reputation was damaged by identification but who was later found to be innocent and eliminated from an investigation.

The Law Commissioners and ACPO will meet in the coming weeks to thrash out their differences. Mr Trotter said the new rules followed on from the old ACPO guidance, which generally advised against naming arrested suspects but permitted forces to confirm names.

He said the new policy would end the ‘dance’ of confirming and denying identities when names are put to police forces.

He explained: ‘The problem at the moment is that it is unclear what the police should do. Various practices have developed over time.

Most forces do not name people who have been arrested. Some will confirm a name that is put to them. Clearly this is unsatisfactory.


New rules: Andy Trotter Chief constable British Transport Police

‘We are suggesting that people who have been arrested should not be named and only the briefest of details should be given.’

He said the only exceptions would be where it was necessary to release a name to prevent or detect a crime or in order to keep the peace.

He added: ‘We are weighing up the need to be open and transparent with the rights of the individuals concerned and the draft guidance will contain the view that people should not be named.’

Mr Trotter insisted that this was not ‘secret justice’ and added: ‘I am in favour of open justice and have been listening to many different points of view.

‘I want police officers to continue working with journalists.’

The guidance will now go to the College of Policing for approval, before being sent to forces around the country for implementation.



Previous arrests: The names of some individuals arrested as part of Operation Yewtree have emerged in the press including Gary Glitter, left, and Jim Davidson, right. They all deny wrongdoing

The Mail on Sunday investigation showed wide inconsistencies between police forces in the naming of arrested suspects.

Nearly all say they don’t name individuals on arrest but operate different policies to provide help to journalists.

Greater Manchester Police says it tells journalists ‘they are not wrong’ if they approach the force with a correct name – but won’t give official confirmation.

The Metropolitan Police says it does not confirm names to journalists until the suspect has been charged.

Cambridgeshire Police only confirms a name on the day an individual who has been charged is due in court.

This is one of Britain's favourite entertainers. He's been arrested by Savile police and codenamed 'Yewtree No 5' - but you're not allowed to be told who he is

He is 82 years old and a much-loved showbiz personality, who was arrested on March 28 in Berkshire by police investigating abuse claims made since the death of BBC DJ Jimmy Savile.

But police refuse to allow his name to be made public.

The Metropolitan Police Savile investigation is codenamed Operation Yewtree and has led to 12 arrests.

The names of some individuals have emerged in the media after confirmation by neighbours, lawyers and journalists’ detective work.


The Metropolitan Police Savile investigation is codenamed Operation Yewtree and has led to 12 arrests

They include Gary Glitter, Freddie Starr, Jim Davidson and Dave Lee Travis. They all deny wrongdoing.

But the latest celebrity arrested is referred to by police only as Yewtree 5 and his identity has not been published in newspapers.

Nevertheless, his name has been widely circulated on the internet in blogs and social media forums.

The Met said there were ‘good reasons’ for not naming anyone in the Yewtree investigation.

But when asked to explain these reasons, they merely referred to the Met’s standard policy of not identifying anyone they arrest.

This newspaper has decided not to publish the name of Yewtree 5.

Last week, the first person charged under Yewtree was named as ex-BBC driver David Smith.

He will face two charges of indecent assault and two of gross indecency on a boy under 14, plus another serious sex attack on a boy under 16. Smith, 66, from Lewisham, South-East London, will appear before magistrates on May 8.

Savile is believed to have been Britain’s most prolific paedophile. Detectives have received about 600 complaints of abuse, of which more than 450 relate to Savile.

UK's Law Commissioner David Ormerod insists: Yes, reporting of arrests IS in public interest

A fair and open justice system is something we value highly in this country. As citizens, it is imperative that we have confidence that our legal process is transparent.

And it has long been recognised that one of the best ways of ensuring this is for accurate reports of trials to appear in the media, hence the saying: ‘Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.’

To ensure a fair trial, there must be restrictions on what can be reported – and when.


David Ormerod, QC and Law Commissioner says that there must be restrictions on what can be reported to ensure a fair trial

For example, if a judge had ruled that certain information about a defendant was not to be admitted at the trial but the jury saw reports of that information in the media, they might be swayed. The trial would be prejudiced and justice would not be done.

That is why there are legal safeguards to make sure that reporting on trials is fair.

One of these is the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which ensures that information that runs a real risk of seriously prejudicing a trial should not be put in the public domain until the trial is over.

In the light of concerns that the Act had not kept pace with developments such as the internet, the Law Commission, an independent advisory body that keeps the law under review, was asked to consider whether changes should be made.

The review includes a range of issues, including the role of the internet, on which jurors might read information about a defendant.

'A fair and open justice system is something we value highly in this country. As citizens, it is imperative that we have confidence that our legal process is transparent.'

David Ormerod, Law Commissioner

Another area we considered was what information should be released to the media when someone is arrested.

At the moment, the Act does not prohibit a newspaper or broadcaster reporting that a named person has been arrested – as long as what they report is not seriously prejudicial to any future trial.

But during our review, we were told that different police forces handle the release of information about arrests differently.

Some forces will confirm, off the record, that a particular person has been arrested if a reporter supplies the name. Others refuse to confirm or deny in the same circumstances. Others might even supply a name.

This inconsistency is clearly problematic. It is a contempt of court if a newspaper or broadcaster publishes prejudicial material about someone who has been arrested.

However, the publisher would have a defence if they did not know or have reason to suspect that the person named had been arrested and that proceedings were therefore ‘active’.

A consistent policy applied by police about whether to name those arrested would help the media to know whether proceedings are ‘active’ and whether reporting restrictions apply.

We have provisionally proposed that new ACPO guidance should be produced which would encourage police forces to adopt greater consistency in deciding whether to confirm the identities of those who have been arrested.


The Law Commissioner has suggested that new ACPO (pictured) guidance should be produced which would encourage police forces to adopt greater consistency in deciding whether to confirm the identities of those who have been arrested

In drafting our provisional proposals, we considered freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act, which covers the press’s right to report and the public’s right to know.

Clearly this has to be balanced with an individual’s right to privacy. But it is not hard to imagine cases of clear public interest in which arrests should be reported.

What the Law Commission has not proposed is the general, blanket release of the names of all people arrested. Our provisional proposal is that reporters should be able to check through the proper, official channels.

The intention is to provide guidance that is consistent, logical and fair to all, while providing enough flexibility for decisions about the release of arrestees’ names to be decided on their own merits.

We are also reviewing from what point in a police investigation the Contempt of Court Act should impose restrictions on reporting.

At the moment, criminal proceedings in England and Wales are said to become ‘active’ when a suspect is arrested. We considered whether that trigger should be changed to when a suspect is charged.

But this leaves a possibly protracted period when a suspect may have been arrested without being charged, during which reporting could be prejudicial. Our preliminary proposal is that the law should remain unchanged.

I’d stress that our initial proposals are a long way from becoming law. We are now sifting through the many responses to our suggestions for changes to the Contempt of Court Act.

Only then will we make our final recommendations to Government for consideration.