A pilot scheme of mobile prisons in crime hotspots - where police could process, fingerprint and fine criminals without needing to leave their beat and return to a faraway police station - is the headline proposal in the Conservative Party's plans to allow the police to concentrate on policing.
It is included in a new paper, Back on the Beat, published last night by David Ruffley, the shadow police reform minister, and you can download it directly as a pdf here or through the Conservative Party website. It comes at the end of a week where the recently appointed shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, made his first speech in that role.
The main proposals included in the document are:
- A pilot of new specially-designed mobile urban gaols (“MUGs”) to go into crime hotspots that are afflicted by, for instance, knife crime and antisocial disorder. Police will be able to deal with more offenders more quickly without having to go all the way back to the police station. MUG’s can reduce the time offenders spend off the beat. MUGs will also mean a more visible police presence for the public.
- Reforming one of the biggest police paper chases of them all – the police having to fill in the length MG6 disclosure forms for the lawyers in the CPS.
- Abolition of statutory charging for a large number of offences - this means giving back powers to custody sergeants to charge offenders without having to fill in forms for the CPS lawyers and then spend further time waiting for those lawyers to make a charging decision. (David Ruffley first announced this policy in an article on ConservativeHome in November last year)
- Scrapping the current ‘RIPA’ rules that make a policeman fill in multiple forms every time he wants to stakeout a known burglar’s house or carry out plain clothed surveillance.
- Cutting the paperwork of stop and search recording.
David Ruffley said:
"Twelve years of Labour red tape and bureaucracy have wasted police time, keeping them away from front line crime-fighting. Labour have a criminal record - antisocial disorder, gun crime, violence, robbery, knife crime and stabbings are all up on their watch.
"We need to take the handcuffs off the police and put them on the criminals. The public want the police back on the beat which is where the police also want to be and these proposals are a start in achieving just that."
Jonathan Isaby
And please do tell. Who is going to pay and staff these gaols when you will be cutting the Home Office budget? And where will these gaols be parked? who's house will they be put outside? what is the public going to think when one of these things turns up in their street? Sort of a nice idea but ill thought out.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 10:58
I would suggest they could be parked in crime hotspots. FOr example last night on my local high street I walked past 4 fights outside local pubs. A mobile gaol here would be a very useful deterent.
As for staffing how about cutting back on the masses of civil servants we now have in Britain? When we were last in government, less than one in five workers were employed by the state, and this is now two in five
Posted by: Andy Hemsted | February 28, 2009 at 11:28
I actually think this is a good idea.
Posted by: Clive Elliot | February 28, 2009 at 11:34
So we make more people unemployed Andy?
Anyway back to these Gaols. Will there be a provision for Solicitors to be able to talk to their clients? Will there be medical provision for people who self harm or people with medical conditions? this would mean that there would have to be a place for a Force Medical Examiner (FME) to carry out his or her work. Would there be a provision to separate male and female prisoners and a separate area for searches. What about the violent offender? How would they be dealt with. It can take up to 6 officers to restrain a violent criminal. Usually officers who are at the station doing admin or having a break will respond to a violent offender alarm in custody. How will a mobile gaol help if six officers have to respond to an urgent assistance shout to a mobile gaol.
Prima Facie this is a good idea. However, the devil will be in the detail and I really cannot see it being practical.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 11:45
Isn't this what used to be called 'the local police station'?
Posted by: richard | February 28, 2009 at 12:18
It appears that this is going to be some huge structure, well it has to be. I heard on the 1 o'clock news that DNA will be taken in this thing and people could be charged with offences. Well that means an officer of at least Sergeant rank to start with. It also means a sterile area for taking and storing DNA. This is starting to sound silly now.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 12:22
I think this idea has a lot going for it. In my local town, the police currently park a number of vehicles in the side streets and the back streets of the clubs and pubs area on a Friday and Saturday night, ready and able to cope with any outbreak of trouble. If they had a mobile police station, they could process the troublemakers there and then, and so be back on the job that much quicker. Of course they could only hold a few prisoners at one time and they would have to transfer anybody they wanted to hold to a proper cell quickly.
The real bonus would be in cases that required nothing more than a spot fine or caution, which could be dealt with straightaway. In such circumstances the savings in costs and time associated with transporting people to out of town centre facilities, might well be worth the investment. This is an idea that should be piloted at the very least.
Posted by: Bishop Swine a 93 agenda on the cards. | February 28, 2009 at 13:27
Sod all the rubbish Josh has posted. get tough on the criminals, make them realise we mean business and they won't get away with their behaviour. Put the victims first and the criminals last and let those tempted to go into crime watch and learn its not worth it. Basically stop pussy footing around. The public are 100% on our side all the way, so well done Grayling.
Posted by: MG | February 28, 2009 at 13:41
On the spot fines and cautions are exactly what it says on the tin. They can be given anywhere. If However they get a police station caution (inc mobile) then an officer of Inspector rank might have to administer that caution. SO now we have a Sergeant as detention officer an inspector for cautions a Force Medical Examiner (a Doctor) a room for storing and taking DNA that would have to be manned etc etc. As I said, on the face of it, it appears not to be a bad idea. However, the more you look into it the more it seems it is not going to happen.
PLUS...How much would these things cost? I am guessing to buy and maintain they would be at least £150,000 and I think that is a very conservative estimate. Even if it cost £150k that would pay for for 6 new police officers wages for a year.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 13:47
I think Retail Gaols are a great idea -- for a reason not mentioned in the report -- there is far too much 'private security' operating in public areas in this country - putting 'real' police back in control is to be welcomed.
However the justification for Mobile Gaols seems a bit odd - the situations where they would be used do nothing for 'beat' coppers - they seem to be for convenience on special operations which I guess is OK - but what is not OK (in my view) is their use as 'overflow' if extra space is needed, then it should be added properly.
'Cheap and cheerful' extensions are likely to end up as an excuse to have an endless series of crackdowns on all kinds of minor things to 'look tough'.
Gordon Brown may be proud that he has had so many people locked up in our prisons (boasting in the commons) whereas he should actually be ashamed that so many places have become required on his watch...
Posted by: pp | February 28, 2009 at 13:48
MG if you do not have the capacity to debate then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on here. My arguments are valid and some members have answered.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 14:12
"PLUS...How much would these things cost? I am guessing to buy and maintain they would be at least £150,000 and I think that is a very conservative estimate. Even if it cost £150k that would pay for for 6 new police officers wages for a year."
This is the killer point, it would be expensive. So I would imagine that it would only be worth the effort in the cities and larger towns. Now we see how foolish it was to build our police stations out of town. Our reliance on the police car, and all the paperwork that result from our softly softly police culture, make ideas like this sound plausible. Would an additional 6 police officers be just as effective?
I still like this idea, as the mobiles could be deployed at large events and protests when trouble was expected. Some people would only be happy if the cells were used to administer a quick birching, but for that to be effective you would need to add a magistrate and layers to the staff needed to man these Mobiles. A great deal of the problem associated with policing is the result of the legal protection we give to everyone who the police detain. We might get just as good results from reducing the paper work our police currently are burdened with.
Posted by: [email protected] | February 28, 2009 at 14:27
Actually Josh, what your posts show is that you haven't read the full document. The devil is in the detail and all your questions are actually answered in the full doc. 1. Yes there will be room for solicitors, 2. You need a custody sergeant in a designated police station, not a non-designated police station which is what this is. 3. Section 45A of PACE allows for a custody sergeant to discharge his duties remotely over video link.
As to the budget, the doc also points out that the NPIA (the org supposedly set up to improve police performace) has a budget of 600 mill. And the cost of building a new custody unit is in the millions.
Reckon that before you go off on one and criticse others for not understanding you read the full paper and see if you're points are addressed...
Posted by: Bill Palmer | February 28, 2009 at 15:28
Actually Josh, what your posts show is that you haven't read the full document. The devil is in the detail and all your questions are actually answered in the full doc. 1. Yes there will be room for solicitors, 2. You need a custody sergeant in a designated police station, not a non-designated police station which is what this is. 3. Section 45A of PACE allows for a custody sergeant to discharge his duties remotely over video link.
As to the budget, the doc also points out that the NPIA (the org supposedly set up to improve police performace) has a budget of 600 mill. And the cost of building a new custody unit is in the millions.
Reckon that before you go off on one and criticse others for not understanding you read the full paper and see if you're points are addressed...
Posted by: BillSalama | February 28, 2009 at 15:28
"On the spot fines and cautions are exactly what it says on the tin"
I've never understood how on the spot fines comply with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Posted by: RichardJ | February 28, 2009 at 16:42
Perhaps something like this might just be what is needed.
Posted by: John Anslow | February 28, 2009 at 16:59
Will the mobile gaols be used to enforce the smoking ban? "Treat Me" Ruffley must state who will put in these prisons - thugs or smokers and motorists. My guess is that it they will used to enforce Cameron's green authoritarian agenda.
Why are the Tories unwilling to commit to restore smoking freedom in pubs? Their pubs campaign is hypocritical and just a spoiler to thwart the popularity of UKIP's Save Our Pubs campaign.
Don't be MUGs and fall for this gimmick!
Posted by: UKIP campaigner | February 28, 2009 at 17:29
"'ve never understood how on the spot fines comply with the principle of innocent until proven guilty."
They don't but you can always refuse to accept a fine, so there is always the option to take the issue to court. If people realised how damaging even a caution can be, they would never agree to one, unless of course they were achknowledging (like a good citizen) their guilt.
Posted by: [email protected] | February 28, 2009 at 18:15
A sound set of proposals is ruined by a stupid idea that will never get past the light of day. I think they have wanted something to catch the headlines and some bright spark as come up this idea.
If you want to stop trouble on the streets make clubs and pubs close at a reasonable hour and just make sure all areas have higher profile policing.
This simplistic nonsense of lets me tough on those who break the law doesn`t really reduce crime. Crime will be reduced by actually stopping it happening in the first place.
I also think that in many areas street lighting does need to be improved. It is so bad in some areas it is nothing more than an invitation to commit crime under the cover of darkness.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 28, 2009 at 18:39
Who was it who said 'even if you think you are guilty, a discussion with a lawyer may prove otherwise'...
A bit like MP's expenses claims I guess.
Oh yes I remember - it was Gordon Brown...
The problem with admitting anything is the draconian penalites most things carry - 'fessing up may be the honorable thing to do if the punishment fitst the crime, but when it doesn't... Obviously the most honorable thing to do is to stay within the law - but staying within every speed limit?? do me a favour... Paying duty on home-grown-tobacco for your own use?? do me a favour... needing a licence/quota to catch your own fish in the sea?? do me a favour...
Posted by: pp | February 28, 2009 at 18:56
RichardJ and Ross Warren; PND's do not act as summaru justice, there is NO admission of guilt in accepting a PND. You can accept a PND while continuing to deny the offence, it is not considered in the same way as being found guilty at court.
It requires no admissions whatsoever, merely for the alleged offender to accept the ticket rather than electing to go to custody instead (when they may then later be proven guilty or released without charge).
Posted by: Anon Copper | February 28, 2009 at 19:06
first of all, bill of rights 1689, only a judge can issue a fine where a jail sentence is not neccasary (not the exact wording but means the same)
do not put the police above the law, that is what labour has been doing.
second, if you get rid of the unnecasary red tape and paper work you remove half the problems the police face.
lastly, if anybody has their dna taken for a fine or caution and isn't put before the magistrate and found guilty then the police and goverment are going against an EU ruling.
this is just more big brother crap with the move towards a database state.
old policing worked, it will once again, just allow people to be punished for breaking common law like they are supposed to be.
Posted by: chris southern | February 28, 2009 at 19:18
I do think the Conservative proposals for law and order reform are largely very impressive- but please do bear in mind that PACE was a Conservative devised piece of legislation, and its implementation has arguably had the biggest negative effect on police freedom from bureaucracy in living memory.
This is not to be taken as me saying that all PACE should be repealed or that it is wrong- I am well aware that much of its deals with detainee rights which are not in the least bit controversial and absolutely correct... but before the 'Labour killed policing and justice' bandwagon begins it is worth recognising the impact that Conservative introduced legislation has had on policing in this country.
Incidentally, PNDs do not place police above the law. The Bill of Rights may say that people are free from being fined without a trial but that person is not being found guilty by anybody nor are they asked to enter any sort of plea. As I stated before, there is no admission or finding of guilt. I wish PNDs were unnecessary and that police had the time to deal with offences such as shoplifting even for first time offenders through the judicial system but if PNDs were taken out of use tomorrow I strongly suspect that when attending incidents of this nature that officers would be loath to take this person in to custody unless there was no other option as spending 4 or 5 hours in custody with this person would mean not being there when a member of the public dials 999 needing help desperately.
These trade offs are already made in a number of cases. Even with cannabis I am aware anecdotally that prior to being able to issue street cautions that it was often put down a drain rather than used as evidence and the person in possession brought in. This is not meant to imply dishonesty or any disrespect for the criminal justice system (and I apologise if it causes anyone to feel that it does) but instead demonstrates the unintended consequences of politicians trying to manipulate working practices in a policing culture which is extremely difficult to understand from the outside.
I welcome reform. I am desperate for it. However please don't confuse the rank and file local officers doing their everyday jobs (I have never given a speeding ticket or done a s.44 search in my career) and the lofty legislation which you read about in the media. I still pose with my uncomfortable embarrassed smile if someone asks me to- the whole 'arresting someone for taking a photo of a police officer' is just media hysteria, it is this serious divide between what appears to be popular perception of the modern police officer and the reality which concerns me more than anything. I want the public's support but equally I want an acceptance that we are not here to make everyone happy, we are here to ensure the peace is kept and that may at times be at odds with complete freedom to do as you please. This is not controversial but I do sometimes wonder if people want us to keep them safe and enforce the law or cower in the stations scared to say 'No' to someone for fear of a complaint or a backlash from the public.
Those of us not sat hiding in air-conditioned offices in departments within police stations working 9-5 jobs are still doing our best and useless as it might be me saying it- you have nothing to fear from us. I am not out to get as much power as I can, I just come in to work and try to do my best for the community; Granted I do not always get the results I try my best to achieve and inevitably there are occasional mistakes made, but the torrent of criticism policing comes in for in this country is incredibly damaging. If you could imagine your working life being under such scrutiny- every decision subject to intense examination in court (quite rightly) but combined with a significant proportion of the public sniping from the sidelines then I hope you might get a sense of why some of us trying our best to do the frontline job despair. It is us who get it in the necks in the press, or from the public on the streets. That suits the Government who issue policies from up high and it suits the senior management within the police who are insulated from blame by virtue of their relative anonymity.
There needs to be a culture shift both within the police, but equally with regards to the way the public assess the police. The negativity does not encourage honesty and transparency, it encourages a risk-averse and nervous police force.
Within the police rank and file we have been fighting hard for reform for many years, I hope that is not too far away and that the public and police can work together to rebuild us as a police force for the 21st century but when you criticise us then bear in mind that when a police officer makes an error in their job it is front page news, but stories of awesome bravery are barely even featured in local news. This distortion of public opinion by the media and the public's willing to consume such distortion is a culture that will need to change if positive reform is to be forthcoming.
Posted by: Anon Copper | February 28, 2009 at 20:36
@anon copper, i fully understand the point your making as i know quite a few officers of various ranks (all sounds guys and girls)
i just think the knee jerk reactions of politicians without consulting the beat officers is a huge problem.
Posted by: chris southern | February 28, 2009 at 21:48
This is not new pre PACE 1984 the Met would have vans like this and use them at football matches and demonstrations or other public order events.
They were successful, but hey ho PACE stopped that and anyway DNA should be taken on conviction, finger prints can be taken to assist Identification of Known Crims.
Why an FME? If that is needed its ambulance and then to the established Nick. Cautions thats easy get them to return to the Nick, there can be a caution day or down the local council offices, oh and before you knock that remember the Great Train Robbers were tried in the Aylesbury Rural District Council Offices.
Please do not do a 100 reasons why this will fail the difficulties of policing always argue for themselves! Coppers just get on with it.
Posted by: that bloke | February 28, 2009 at 22:26
'Why an FME? If that is needed its ambulance and then to the established Nick.'
And thus taking police officer or two to escort the detained person to hospital. Surely this defeats the whole point of the idea.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 23:01
"And thus taking police officer or two to escort the detained person to hospital. Surely this defeats the whole point of the idea."
Have to agree. I have no figures to support this statement- but in my personal experience an incredible amount of officer's time is taken up having to transport prisoners to hospitals and then sit with them. Perhaps there is scope for privatisation of this role?
Posted by: Anon Copper | February 28, 2009 at 23:07
Anon,
I am a law student (llb) and on a recent work placement there were at least three incidents per shift of detained persons being transported to hospital. Most of it is unnecessary. The duty custody sergeant told me that the occurrence can be reduced to zero if an FME is called on each occassion. However, he did go on to state that some prisoners know that if they say they are having pains in their chest, then an ambulance will be called almost immediately.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 23:36
Correction.
The above meant to say three per day as opposed to three per shift.
Posted by: josh | February 28, 2009 at 23:43
Andy Hemsted has a very good point. Our "civil service" needs to be reduced because it is constricting the private sector. To lose one civil servant could reduce the load to the extend of generating two private sector jobs.
Posted by: Super Blue | March 01, 2009 at 11:15
One thing that surprised me in my own happiness project is the truth of the proposition that Novelty and challenge bring happiness~
Posted by: Cheap Jordans | January 20, 2011 at 05:43