I am so glad that J Taylor corrected Steven Price's unfounded comments about
colour schools not being the same as faith schools. However,using J Taylor's
same argument,faith schools are unfounded for the same reason,they are
divisive,and lead to people not understanding those not of their faith. Beliefs
are personal choices,not matters of basic knowledge and have no place in
the school system.
Met 'is spying on its black officers'
Don't join the Met say black officers
It's not black and white
Muslim sues Met after being told to fry bacon
Service Delivery Unit
Professional Standards Department
Internal e-mail: PSD - General Enquiries
>>> Lee Borrell < 14/07/2009 21:59 >>>
Please could someone respond to the METRO article concerning Chris Hogben's
zero tolerance of litter louts,which says that they will be locked up for
Are the police in this country totally nuts? They do not seem to realise
why they are being paid - it is to protect people from crime. Petty crime
such as dropping litter should not be a priority when people are being knifed
to death. Perhaps if the police took a zero tolerance approach to abusive
alcoholic teenagers threatening people then we would not hear the stories
we do of gangs texting people into honey traps and being killed.
Litter is a problem - it is not THAT big a problem and people should not
be jailed for it - killing people IS a big crime and should be punished.
The fact is the police pay too much attention to petty crime and not enough
to serious crime. In my own area (Manchester) the police failed to attend
a public beating of a woman - meanwhile the local council and it's police
lackey's are trying to criminalise dog owners who leave excrement behind.
The police have their priorities all mixed up - and the Metro story only
highlight's this further - no wonder the public have no confidence in a force
that is completely out of touch with the crimes the people want something
Litter is a job for local council by -laws - not the police.
>>> Louiza SPOKES PSE 52809 15/07/09 10:00 >>>
>>> PSD - General Enquiries 15/07/09 07:54 >>>
Dear Mr. Borrell
Thank you for your e-mail which I have today forwarded to the Area Commander
at South Kent for attention.
|--- On Wed, 15/7/09, Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709 >
Subject: Fwd: Re: Litter Louts
Date: Wednesday, 15 July, 2009, 6:53 PM
Dear Mr Borrell
I write in response to the email that you sent to the Kent Police Professional
Standards department.I would make the following points:
Firstly I have not stated that people who drop litter should be jailed,any
suggestion of this in a paper is simply wrong.What I do strongly advocate
is that my officers should robustly enforce the law at all levels,in my
experience if we allow standards to drop,in particular around low level
antisocial behaviour,then offenders go on to commit more serious offences.All
of the feedback I get from the Local communities that we serve suggests that
this is actually what the public want to see their Police Officers doing.In
terms of litter,this means challenging those who drop litter,giving a warning
to offenders and making them pick up what they have dropped.If they refuse
or the matter is seen as more serious dealing with it by way of a fixed penalty
notice or by reporting the offender for summons so that they can be summonsed
to court for the offence.If the offender refuses to give their name and
address,or the one given is not suitable for service of a summons,then the
offender can be arrested and dealt with at the Police Station.These powers
We treat serious crime as a priority in Kent,we have an excellent track record
in dealing the murders and other serious crimes that occur.It may interest
you to know that Public confidence is rising in Kent and indeed strongly
in my Policing Area,South Kent.I have consistently sent out a robust message
through the press about the Police enforcing the law and will continue to
do so.I get a lot of public feedback,the vast bulk of which is very positive,in
fact I have even had correspondence from members of the public in other Counties
asking why they don't see the same approach from their local Police.
I agree that the local Council have a responsibility in tackling litter and
all forms of anti social behaviour,in Kent the Police and Local Councils
work together to deal with these issues.I expect my Officers to play their
part.Hopefully my explanation will demonstrate to you that we haven't got
our priorities wrong and that we are making Kent a safer place to live and
Yours sincerely Chris Hogben Area Commander,South Kent Police.
|>>> Lee Borrell <> 16/07/09 19:25 >>>
Please find attached report from today's paper.
I think you may find that the public see such policies as unfair and seemingly
are willing to retaliate. It maybe better to realise that the police are
public servants and should be policing what the public want. At the very
least they should not expect support for litter lout offences when people
are being knifed to death. Add to that the corralling
of people voicing their opinions using free speech and I would say opinion
of the police is at an all time low.
|--- On Fri, 17/7/09, Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709 <> wrote:
From: Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709 <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Litter Louts
To: "Lee Borrell" <>
Date: Friday, 17 July, 2009, 9:43 AM
I don't think that the mob of what can only be described as yobs count as
the public.The decent,law abiding members of the local community expect the
Police to enforce the law,that is what they pay for through taxation.My officers
will enforce the law,including against low level anti social behaviour.If
criminals such as those described in the press article attack our officers
we will deal with them robustly.These sorts of yobs do not have the support
of the community and certainly would not stop my officers going about their
I would also stress the point that we are more than capable of dealing with
serious crime and addressing issues of anti social behaviour.All of the feedback
that we get from the public relates to anti social behaviour rather than
the serious crime that you highlight.
You may also be interested to know that public confidence in the Police in
Kent seems to be rising,we have seen strong improvements in the Public confidence
figures in my policing area, South Kent over the last 9 months.
Chris Hogben Area Commander, South Kent Police.
|Re: Fwd: Re: Litter LoutsFriday, 17 July, 2009 11:29 AM
From: "Lee Borrell" <>View contact details
To: "Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709" <>
I am glad that the statistics show an improvement. Whilst I do not count
myself as a yob but a member of the public,and would not stamp on an officers
head,I would surely complain that the police had their priorities wrong should
I be asked to lift a burger wrapper from the street. As it happens I do not
eat burgers, and I put litter in bins,but I can surely sympathise with people
who might hurl abuse at what seems like pedantry. The point is that whilst
dropping litter is actually a law,and thence should be enforced in principle,the
public is liable to see it as draconian,and when the police already (at least
here) have a bad press,it only further serves to alienate them from the public.
I would rather see an officer use force when a REAL crime has been committed,and
I would not be surprised if they get an adverse reaction about dropping litter.
There was a book called 1984 which suggested having sex would become a crime
- if you don't know it - read it - we're practically there. No doubt you
would pride yourself on stopping people having sex and say that the statistics
reflected that you were doing a good job. Sometimes the police cannot see
the wood for the statistics.
I hope that the policies that are pursued by any police force do not end
with us having a country where people you are protecting are more frightened
of the force that protects them than they are of criminals. Right now,advice
given by the police is to leave your car keys out for criminals - hardly
a tactic that fights crime.
Thankyou for your replies.
must change the way they manage protests or risk losing public confidence,
a report into the G20 demonstrations has warned.
Crime Senior officers are too focused on dealing with disorder and
not enough on allowing peaceful protest, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of
Constabulary, Denis O'Connor, has said. His report into the April 1 London
protests found public order training and tactics are "inadequate for the
modern day". He said officers are too interested in whether protests are
lawful or not, instead of focusing on allowing peaceful demonstrations. Mr
O'Connor said some officers policing G20 were not sufficiently aware of human
rights laws and he criticised police use of containment to pen in demonstrators
on the day Ian Tomlinson died, calling it "inconsistent". He called on the
Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to carry out a wide-ranging review
of tactics and training for officers dealing with protesters. The Metropolitan
Police accepted the report's recommendations and launched a review of officer
training. But Assistant commissioner Chris Allison denied senior officers
were unaware of human rights laws and how they relate to protests. However,
he accepted the Met could lose public confidence if it did not make changes
to how it polices protest. He said: "As an organisation that serves the public,
we accept that we must always seek to provide the best possible service and
this means making improvements where necessary." Mr O'Connor said the changes
must be made as soon as possible to "meet the challenges of the 21st century",
and particularly ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games. James Welch, legal director
at human rights group Liberty said: "We welcome the finding that the police
have a positive duty to facilitate peaceful protest and a common sense obligation
not to make difficult situations worse. "However, this debate is only just
beginning. The tactic of 'kettling' large groups so that peaceful protesters
and passers-by are trapped for hours alongside more troublesome elements
exacerbates tensions and creates a risk to public safety."
Obama's victory paves way for black prime minister
With respect to your stories about Alun Elder-Brown and Fata Lemes,the British
population are sick of kow-towing to muslims who fal to realise they are
living in Britain. If they do not like it here then why come here? Blind
men have rights too,and the dress that was part of a dress code was not "sexy"
- it merely did not comply with muslim's ideas of prudishness. If I am employed
- I expect to comply with an employer's dress code regardless of what my
beliefs happen to be. As both your correspondent's noted there is a level
of hypocrisy in muslim's intolerance of other people's ways of being that
makes them stand out in a country that tries to tolerate difference. Why
do they not accept that sometimes they have to tolerate things they do not
like,much as I tolerate muslims?