Last Thursday and Friday, December 3 and 4, saw an international conference of a very high calibre take place in Limerick (see press coverage in the Irish Times and the Irish Examiner). This conference (previously advertised on this blog here), which focused on Police Governance and Accountability, was organised through the Centre for Criminal Justice in the University of Limerick by a contributor to this blog, Dr. Vicky Conway (formerly of UL, now at Queen’s University Belfast) and Professor Dermot Walsh (UL).

The conference was very well-attended and drew an impressive array of scholars and practitioners researching and working in the area of policing both nationally and internationally. The main plenary presentations were given by Professor Andrew Goldsmith from the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia, Professor James Sheptycki from York University in Toronto, Canada and an intriguing turn-and-turn-about final plenary presentation from Dr. Vicky Conway and Professor Dermot Walsh.

Professor Goldsmith discussed the manner in which modern technology, such as mobile phones, digital cameras and the internet (specifically sites like YouTube), are allowing for a new sort of transparency in policing whereby previously invisible police actions can be observed, recorded and shown to the public at large. He gave the example of the death of a Polish immigrant, Robert Dziekanski, following the police use of a taser gun on him in Vancouver airport which was caught on video. Professor Goldsmith used the phrase “sous-veillance” for this type of recording of police actions which comes from beneath and can be contrasted with the more traditional sur-veillance (which comes from the top down). All of this, he suggested, will have an impact on the ability of the police to manage public perceptions of policing, on the demands that are made of oversight agencies, and on the practice of policing in general.

Professor Sheptycki discussed the challenges which exist for transnational policing in the modern world. Employing interesting analogies from the world of art and art history, Professor Sheptycki explored the concept of “constabularly ethics” and sought to ask the question, in the context of European co-operation in policing, “what is good policing?” Professor Sheptycki was particularly interested in “The Raft of the Medusa” by Gericault, which is housed at the Louvre, and depicts a scene of tragedy on a raft set adrift after the wreck of a French naval vessel. Of 147 people aboard the raft, only 15 survived. The painting shows a point of crisis but with the hope of a rescue ship in the distance. Professor Sheptycki suggests that the concept of the “constabulary ethic” may bring hope to the future of transnational policing.

While each of the plenary sessions were thought-provoking, from an Irish perspective the swift overview of the Garda Síochána, from their initial establishment through to current challenges and future possibilities delivered in this third session was particularly interesting. Dr. Conway and Professor Walsh raised many questions about the level of political control of the gardaí provided for under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the potential strengths and weaknesses of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the general secrecy of the Gardaí as an institution. Dr. Conway gave a most insightful description of the work of the Morris Tribunal, the allegations which led to its establishment and the findings of Mr. Justice Morris (all of which are detailed in her forthcoming book “The Blue Wall of Silence: The Morris Tribunal and Police Accountability in Ireland“). Professor Walsh mentioned the lack of statistics on many policing issues in this jurisdiction. He suggested that material such as The Garda Code ought to be made publicly available and was of the opinion that the availability of such material and public knowledge about the training and ethics of the gardaí might in fact increase public confidence in the force.

More than 40 papers were delivered over the course of the two-day event on topics including: juvenile justice and alternative policing; police complaints and accountability; policing of vulnerable groups; new technologies in policing; police culture and decision-making; local policing; policing and constitutional values; policing and the law of evidence; and many other related matters. Rights issues which arose included: incursions on the right to silence; the protection of the suspect right to pre-trial legal advice; victims’ rights; privacy rights and the use of DNA; the consequences of police abuse of power and the exclsuion of evidence; children’s rights; privacy rights and the use of CCTV; and many more.

This was a most successful and informative conference which allowed for transnational discussions at the macro level on the changing nature of modern policing and the challenges for the investigation of crime in a globalised world, as well as debates and comparisons on the details of policing powers and experiences at a micro level in different jurisdictions.

A photo from the Denver Post website, in a collection called Policing the Slums of Rio de Janeiro. The caption reads: “A young girl stands in a shopping cart in the poverty ridden City of God favela, or slum, on December 2, 2009 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.”

Not sure what to say about this really, just two observations:

(1) the photos ride under a banner ad for the job of Police Chief in Grand Junction, Colorado (it pays $120,000 if you’re interested)

(2) if I had a pound for every use of the phrase ‘poverty-ridden’ on that page I could… well I’d have quite a lot of pounds.

Thanks (I think) to @henrymullen for the link.

Spreading responsibility (but not the power to hold accountable) out into bodies that are essentially still tied to the centre, to governmental and political control. Creating new bodies that aren’t tainted by association with corruption (O Cuiv uses them as a fig leaf for inaction), due to the simple fact that they’re new…

Let’s have a look at the Garda Ombudsman: It was set up because of the Morris Tribunal, because the Gardai stitched up the McBreartys in Donegal, because it wasn’t possible to sweep under the carpet with the usual ‘bad apples’ excuses, because it was too big, because the Gardai demonstrably need someone looking over their shoulders to keep them honest. The obvious assumption is that the Garda Ombudsman would have a reasonably high level of convictions – but that wouldn’t appear to be the case. Instead we have craven professions that the Gardai are not intrinsically corrupt (well, if you say it, that’s alright then), whereas the Garda Ombudsman was created under a very different assumption, one backed up by years of painstaking investigation. On the other hand, the Ombudsman based this premature opinion on such things as having to get the Garda Representative Association off their back. On passing files to the DPP which were immediately shot down and never prosecuted, passing over a huge proportion of their complaints on to the Gardai themselves -to the Gardai themselves – for investigation of alleged Garda misdemeanors. There’s transparency for you.

Mind you, they did ask the Minister to be allowed to investigate the policing of the protests up in Mayo – that kind of idea was swiftly knocked on its head. Before they even do anything they’re hamstrung by the fact that they have no actual powers of sanction (only of investigation) – powers of sanction lie only with the DPP (who almost invariably refuse to take cases – they’ve turned down all of the files that they were sent in relation to cases in Mayo) and with the Garda Commissioner himself. They can only make recommendations to these bodies – that’s why it’s such a big deal that they’ve gone and publicly asked for Supt. Joe Gannon to be disciplined in relation to the Pullathomas Pier incident in 2007. They’ll probably still be turned down by the Garda Commissioner for this disciplining too, but it’s a good thing that they’re looking for it all the same. It disturbs the comfy image that the Gardai like to give of being impartial and objective, and hopefully makes people question their actions and their credibility. Hopefully.

And to top it all off, they’re political appointees too – the current head worked with Dermot Ahern in Foreign Affairs, and was appointed “without an open and transparent recruitment process”, according to the ICCL.

The Garda Ombudsman seem to have grown some kind of backbone with making it publicly known that they want Supt. Gannon punished, but is this just trying to reclaim their lost credibility, or is it a genuine attempt to right a wrong?

Maybe the real question is, given their lack of teeth and their real function of giving an illusion of democracy, does it matter?

Some interesting related stories
Apparently they’re ‘one of the most secretive police forces in the world‘ too.
Two gardai were yesterday convicted of assault after a case brought by the Ombudsman

Conservative religious leaders were some of the sharpest opponents of the federal legislation passed in October that expanded federal hate crimes law to include protections for homosexuals.

Here are some interesting statistics about hate crime in the US. Now, I am undecided about the viability of hate crime legislation (although I do of course recognise that some groups are targeted more than others for violent offences). Also, rises in hate crime offences are often more about the reporting and recording of offences (e.g. willingness to report offences to the police, and police cooperation in investigating offences) than about the number of offences occurring. And let’s not forget that legislation itself brings about spikes in statistics: an act that was not defined last year, in law, will seem to increase greatly this year when it is. Simple logic there.

That said, these statistics are troublesome:

…Attacks based on the religion of the victim rose nearly 9 percent in 2008 over the previous year. That is the highest jump across all major categories, according to FBI hate crime statistics released Monday.

Following close behind religiously motivated hate crimes were racially motivated attacks against African-American targets, which rose more that 8 percent in 2008 — the year that saw the first African-American in history secure a major party nomination, and then win the general election to become the first black president. The rise in anti-black crimes — from 2,658 in 2007 to 2,876 in 2008 — contrasts with a decline in attacks against whites, from 749 in 2007 down to 716 in 2008.

The number of incidents based on sexual orientation increased slightly in 2008, but the number of lesbian, gay or transgender victims (each incident can have more than one victim) rose by 11 percent, the third consecutive year that figure has risen.

Many of these jumps are predictable, but here are few surprises:

The breakdown in religiously motivated crimes shows several interesting trends — though the consistent reality is that Jews and Jewish institutions continue to account for two-thirds of religiously motivated attacks, even though Jews account for less than 2 percent of the U.S. population.

Crimes against Catholics or Catholic targets also jumped, from 61 to 75 in 2008. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, told USA Today the increase could be tied to the church’s increasingly vocal role in debates on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

I’m not sure that Catholics have ever been targeted for crime before, apart from in Northern Ireland. I don’t know what the name for that would be – catholicophobia, anyone?

But this information is certainly food for thought and will surely ignite the debate within Congress (or is it the Senate) again about hate crime legislation.

–

Quoted text from politicsdaily.com

A police force failed to properly investigate an allegation of rape and let the victim down "by basic policing errors and lack of adequate support", an independent investigation has found. (1)

This is another in a series of stories highlighted on this blog on the treatment and neglect of rape victims by the police and other agencies of the Criminal Justice System in the UK. Previous stories:

Rape complaint woman reaches settlement with police

Expert view on rape: ‘Victims are judged and often not believed’

Violent offenders receiving only police cautions

The latest story concerns a woman in Wales whose rape claim was neglected by the police.

Beth Ellis disclosed her plight in the Guardian in 2008 when she agreed to publish her journal, using a pseudonym, detailing how she had been mistreated by South Wales police. She went to the police, she says, to disclose for the first time that she had been sexually assaulted years earlier as a child by her stepfather. (1)

Audio link:

‘They said they lost her file – it was just one of those things’ (2)

"Officers too overworked to pay attention to case". Well that’s OK then. If you’re just too tired to investigate, we completely understand.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said today a detective from the force and his supervising inspector had been disciplined for their failures. Months had been taken to obtain statements, appointments missed, key files had been lost, and a single detective constable handling the case had been left virtually unsupervised. Officers claimed to be too overworked to pay full attention to the case, and after an inadequate investigation, prosecutors turned it down. Ellis said yesterday: "It is really galling that because of this mess, the person involved has got away scot-free." (1)

Quoted text from guardian.co.uk (1) and blogs.guardian.co.uk (2)

Welcome to December, weekly security news digest aficionados. It’s great to see your smiling faces. Even yours.

Today’s missive is, in part, a tribute to Security Installer editor Alan Hyder, who leaves us today after 15 years at the helm of the magazine. Alan is well-loved and respected throughout the security industry, and will be missed greatly – not least by myself.

I’ve worked with Alan for over five years now, firstly as assistant editor on Security Installer, and now on info4security. He has always been a great source of advice and encouragement, and always ready with a joke in a stressful situation. Also in a non-stressful situation. He is also irresistible to ladies. Fact.

Here’s Alan’s last SI Editor’s View column – and, as a very special mark of respect, I’ve allowed him to select this week’s Song About Security. Tributes don’t come any more spectacular and glamorous than that.

In other news this week, we’ve had our latest Bench Test hit the site. This time it’s the Vidilanz Xtern-Cam outdoor wireless camera. How did it fare etc? Find out by clicking and reading!

And why not check out some CCTV footage of a meteor in the South African night sky? It’s dead impressive.

You can also investigate the best read stories on I4S in November; the Home Office releasing its policing white paper; and ADI and Pelco working together in an IP kinda fashion. Heavyweight security news for the discerning professional.

www.info4security.com, www.ifsec.co.uk

The country’s first dedicated rape intelligence unit has been set up within the Metropolitan police promising to identify and track down serial attackers, in response to a series of high-profile failures that left prolific sex offenders free to prey on hundreds of women.

And not before time. Pressure groups have been calling for specialist ‘rape units’ in police forces for years. Rape is still one of the most neglected crimes in the United Kingdom, with the worst clear up rates. Approximately 6% of all investigated rape cases result in a conviction. This does not account for the numbers of rapes which go unreported, and the number of reported rapes which go unrecorded/ investigated. (1)

One only has to look at newspapers this week to see the story of the rape victim whose case was completely ignored by the police in Cambridge.

In the first known case of its kind, a woman who made a rape complaint which was not investigated properly has reached an out of court settlement with police. Catherine says the man who raped her knew he was targeting a particularly vulnerable woman. (2)

The new unit within the Met has been set up to investigate serial sex attacks so it is as yet unclear if it will be investigating one-off attacks (which are infinitely more common). In that respect, while it’s a welcome move, it’s still not enough.

The Yard says it will identify and gather evidence on serial attackers, who have often been left at large for years because of poor detective work, a failure to prioritise rape inquiries and a tendency not to believe victims. "It is unique to have a dedicated intelligence team for rape," said Commander Simon Foy, head of homicide and serious crime at Scotland Yard. "This is about surveillance … intelligence-related analysis of mobile phones … interception, undercover work, all those things. (1)

–

Quoted text from guardian.co.uk (1) and news.bbc.co.uk (2)

It’s the same old story – you never appreciate something until you lose it, and you never fully understand a problem until it is relevant to you.

Two things have happened to me this week that has hit this point home to the core. First, I had to see a GP for the first time in ages. People slate the NHS left, right and centre, but it would be interesting to see their views at the exact moment they realise they have something wrong with them that needs sorted. The ability to see a doctor on the same (or next) day in most areas of the UK is an unbelievable privilege, and one of which we should be eternally thankful.

The other thing that happened was my confrontation with someone asking for money on the street. What’s more, this happened twice in two days. Bad luck or a story in itself?

The first time was the one that got me thinking. I was on my way home from a night out and this guy asked me for a bus fare, explaining that he had lost the keys to his house and needed to get a bus so that he could pick up the spare keys from someone. Fine, so what do I do? Give him a bus fare – £1.10 for a single in London.

Shock horror, that isn’t enough, as he’s got to take three buses to where he’s got to go. To cut a long story short, I wasn’t keen to give the guy that and proceeded to have a 30 minute argument with him about why. It was after midnight and not on a particularly busy road, and there’s no doubt that I felt threatened on more than one occasion.

This brought me to two conclusions. First, it’s a sad state of affairs that there are so many people across the country that are being forced to do this, begging 24-7 and targeting people late at night. Second, the difference in policing around different areas of London and, no doubt, the country is huge. I argued with the guy for at least 30 minutes on busy street in south London, yet not one police car was seen. I’ve been walking through nicer areas in town (Knightsbridge, Chelsea, etc) at similar times and there must be a police car every 5-10 minutes.

Thankfully how we go about fixing these problems isn’t my job, and I don’t envy those in the position to do so. But something has to be done. Something that helps those put in these situations and those who are the victims of it. People need to feel safe walking around our streets.

I’m just glad I didn’t get mugged, physically. It could have gone either way!

ON Wednesday night, I attended the regular Old Skelmersdale Police and Communities Together (PACT) meeting.

The overall crime picture for the month appears to be good, and for that we’ve got our hard working neighbourhood policing team to thank. More good news came in the shape of Coronation Park, where police say there has been a noticeable reduction in the amount of anti social behaviour in the area since the summer.

It’s often said that schemes such as PACT are just talking shops, but certainly in Old Skem, it’s proved to be a success and the Coronation Park issue proves it. Earlier in the year, we had residents turning to us in dispair and the goings-on there. Since then, it’s been made a policing priority, incidents have reduced and we’ve even managed to secure £90,000 worth of funding from West Lancs Borough Council to make improvements.

Regarding this month’s priorities, I asked the police to focus on mini motos, as there is usual a peak in problems associated with them at this time of year with children receiving them for Christmas.

The police agreed to do a leaflet drop warning parents of the dangers of purchasing these mini death traps for their kiddies, and will also be undertaking targeted patrols from Christmas Day onwards, particularly in the Yewdale, Tawd Valley and New Church Farm area – an area which has had problems in the past and I blogged about back in August.

The PACT panel also agreed to set priorities for reassurance patrols around the Welbourne/Sandy Lane areas, as well as patrols on Pennylands following a spate of incidents there.

Finally, I asked a question about how policing in the new Town Centre would work. As was announced last week, the Skelmersdale Vision is now set to go ahead, but this has implications on resources for the police. As I pointed out, the new Town Centre is technically in Birch Green but I know the Old Skem patrols part of it by dint of the fact that they have to walk through half of it to get to their beat patch.

The police indicated that there would probably be a dedicated Town Centre policing team, which I welcomed. Afterall, if we are to finally get a ‘proper’ town centre with its own nightlife, then it needs resourcing properly.

I also raised the prospect of businesses chipping in to help fund such patrols. Such an idea isn’t new, around 5 years ago the Concourse actually paid to have a dedicated PC patrol the shopping centre, and it is certainly something which should be explored once the new town centre starts being built.

Spent a day with some of our Trading Standards team learning more about the work they do.  As ever, amazed by the breadth of the work NCC does around the county. 

First of all I went to the Library in Great Yarmouth (which by the way looks fabulous since it has been refurbished).  The Library were hosting a social event for their WRVS workers .  They have added a community library service to the other work that they do, by delivering books to those who cannot get out to do this themselves.  Doesn’t matter what your circumstances are!  If you genuinely cannot get to the Library yourself, they will deliver the book to you!  Amazing. 

At these annual get-togethers a speaker is invited, so this year it was the turn of Trading Standards.  A good opportunity for them in turn to pass on lots of information about rogue traders, illegal money lenders and now their Trusted Trader and No Cold Calling schemes.  Sadly you dont have to be elderly & frail to be taken in by all sorts of scams and the additional help of these WRVS workers will prove very useful. 

In the afternoon I moved over to the farming team and went on an inspection visit to a small-holding.  Again really interesting.  All sorts of animals being kept, for breeding, showing and for sale/slaughter (turkeys for Christmas, for instance).  Trading Standards need to check that both the animals are being well cared for but also to ensure the paperwork is correct and up-to-date. 

I have often heard that the amount of paperwork is huge, and I can confirm it! extraordinary amount of paperwork needs to be kept.  On sales/purchases, movements, drugs administered etc. 

What did I learn? Goats dont like the rain but like being photographed… 

OK, so why did I have to come out of the warm?

Having managed to get the goat from her  shed to somewhere nice and dry underfoot, and after making faces at her owner,  

Ok, then I can do it!

she went quickly into photogenic mode and started posing for the camera! 

In the first known case of its kind, a woman who made a rape complaint which was not investigated properly has reached an out of court settlement with police. Catherine says the man who raped her knew he was targeting a particularly vulnerable woman.

This is gratifying news for women who have had negative experiences with the police when they have reported a rape. Police forces in the UK are still known for treating rape victims poorly, and for failing to investigate rape allegations correctly and fully. Victim blaming is still rife throughout the Criminal Justice System.

This compensation is the first of its kind here, and while it will have an obvious benefit for the woman involved, it will hopefully have an add-on affect of letting police forces, and other agencies in the Criminal Justice System, that rape is being taken that little bit more seriously now.

The BBC piece details how this investigation was mishandled, and the subsequent steps taken by the victim’s legal team.

–

Quoted text from news.bbc.co.uk

Just another rather depressing story about the paranoia in this country about photographers, and plain stupidity from unthinking policing. Jeff Overs, the BBC staff photographer, who photographs for, amongst other things, the Andrew Marr show, was stopped from photographing a sunset over St Paul’s Cathedral in central London last week. He re-tells the story here, rather nicely, showing what seems to be the only way to deal with this nonsense, a firm but polite disdain.

The Steve Norman “come on and take me to court then” story appears in today’s Evening Cancer.

A couple of passages are worth further analysis:

Police, social services and the watchdog the Care Quality Commission (CSCI) investigated earlier this year after five former care workers at Kingsmead Lodge gave statements on practices that they claimed to have seen at the care home.

Interesting use of the past tense – “investigated’ here. Because if the police have “investigated” and the case is now closed, they haven’t informed any of the original complainants about this.

Whether this is a case of good old-fashioned police incompetence or whether the investigation is, in fact, still ongoing is something that will now be looked at.

The claims that social services have “investigated” are equally confusing. No complainants to Bristol City Council have been informed of the outcome of this “investigation” for starters.

Neither has Bristol City Council published any terms of reference for this “investigation” nor have any complainants been interviewed in the course of this “investigation” and democratic oversight of this “investigation” through either scrutiny commissions or the relevant Executive Member is nowhere to be seen.

In fact it’s hard to locate even one characteristic normally associated with an “investigation” into this affair by Bristol social services.

Then there’s the so-called CSCI “investigation”. Now, this really is bollocks. CSCI are a regulator – with a role similar to OFSTED’s in education. They set national standards and inspect care homes on the basis of those standards. They don’t carry out investigations into individual allegations of abuse in care homes. It’s not their job.

Meanwhile on the substance of Norman’s court challenge the council are simply reduced to waffle:

“Bristol, with other local authorities, follows national ‘Fairer Charging’ guidance in charging for all social services provided. Under the guidelines, all residents in care homes are required to make a financial contribution to the cost of their care, depending on their income. This is subject to a means test to determine what a person can afford to pay.”

So what? Who gives a toss what shitty rules you’re following? The question is: are you going to enforce these rules in court in order that Steve Norman can invite the complainants to give evidence and state the nature of their grievances?

It would certainly be interesting to see if the general public, having heard their complaints, will be as complacent as the authorities seem to be about them.

A lot  has been made in the preceding weeks of ‘Oakwellgate’. Spotty, Henri Lloyd wearing 16-year-old div’s trashing the concourse and petrifying staff. With ticketless United fans apparently let in to the ground at half time, the Daily Mail was sent into a frenzy- we’re heading back to ‘dark old days’.

To match goers like myself, the hysteria surrounding the Barnsley match was hilarious yet sobering. With 6,000 tickets at a reasonable £25, it’s rare for United fans to get such a fair deal that was accessible to all. Barnsley should be applauded for the pricing, they could have easily gone and done a Birmingham or West Brom and charged 50 sheets for their cup final, but the ‘Yarkshare’ club reflected the prices by the players on the pitch, which effectively saw an understrength United team.

From the off, United dominated the play, Ferguson’s reserves made the Championship outfit look futile, ad an early Wellbeck header reflected this. All the fun and games was yet to arrive though….

It would be easy to blame solely United fans for what was to come and no doubt we deserve our fair shame of the blame, but wider questions have to be asked around the circumstances that caused the uproar. South Yorkshire police issued a statement suggesting United fans shouldn’t be mooching about town but should instead head for a beer in Barnsley’s near-by sportsdrome. Now if anyone has ever been to one of those souless shit holes (like at Wigan) then you will know how crap the atmosphere is, how warm the beer is and how immense the stupidity of cramming thousands of fans in to one small area can be. Statements like the one issued may be written with good intentions but as football fans we don’t like to be told what to do. An away day is about having the craic with your mates in an unusual and distant town and feeling of the buzz of the unity that binds us together as we sing songs present and old under the banner of United.

The police have to to look at their tactics and the antagonism that can ensue from their heavy handed actions. This was no more apparent than when they let ticketless United fans in at half time. The mainstream media have glossed over this but those present know how United fans do like a ‘jib’ when possible, but this was a case of letting 300 United fans in to an already crowded stand. It is possible to paint our support as angelic and innocent but scousers we’re not! The presence of the police kitted out in full riot gear does nothing but intimidate and the direct action undertaken to march United fans back to the train station brings in to question the issue of civil liberties.

We live in a liberal democracy yet the police would have the public believe football fans are terrorists leaving us feel like we’ve been interned in Guantanamo. Obviously people will point to the actions of a minority as evidence that football still needs stringent enforcing. However, those of us that follow United regularly know, (as the annual big allocations at Blackburn and Wigan show) that self policing is the best form of practice. It’s up to experienced match goers to take a stand on these Danny Dyer wannabee’s and let them know there is a way of conducting themselves at the match and of following their team so implications such as banning orders and cut allocations don’t come in to effect.

Any comments welcome please. It may take me a while to write back though as I’m currently writing to the British embassy from my cell in Cuba asking for my release and a flight home for West Ham away next week!

Further to Mairead’s post the other day, I’d like to expand a little on the issue of ethnic minority recruitment in an Garda Síochána.

Mr Justice Morris idenfitied in his first report on the Morris Tribunal a culture of ‘us and them’ in the Gardaí. The Gardaí he investigated saw themselves as removed from society in some way. This was behind the ‘blue wall of silence’ which Justice Morris encountered at every turn, meaning that members of the force refused to discuss the wrongdoing of other members. This was epitomised by Garda Leonard who stated ‘You don’t hang your own’. In his recommendations in that first report, Justice Morris called for increased recruitment from ethnic minority groups to break down those concepts of ‘us’. He stated at para 13.124:

“If a sector of society providing one of the most important functions of a democratic society is monolithic in its makeup then that attitude is
reinforced.”

To that end a number of essential changes were made to the recruitment policy of an Garda Síochána. Firstly, the Irish language requirements, which had prevented most from applying were removed, with the Irish language now being covered during Garda training. Secondly, citizenship requirements were reduced to a total residency of 4 of the 8 previous years.

The result has not been entirely sucessful. The Garda Annual Reports for 2007 and 2008 show that 39 trainees from non-Irish backgrounds were recruited and 34 more to the Garda reserve. In 2008 the Garda had set out in their Strategic Goals an aim of 5% of new recruits being from an ethnic minority background but achieved just 2.2%. While the necessary structural changes to the admissions policy have been made, the Sikh case referred to in Mairead’s post, points to a lack of flexibility within the force which is likely to discourage others from joining. Writing in March 2008, then Deputy Commissioner Fitzgerald, who had been in charge of the reform process, wrote ‘the rushed recruitment of newly arrived immigrants was unlikely to deliver a body of professionals that understand the nuances of policing Irish society and culture.’ To my mind, this statement does not appreciate the need for integration. The requirement of 4 years residency in the country had ensured that would not occur. No overt recognition that there may be problems of acceptance of ethnic minorities within the force is present.
Efforts to address this have focused on increasing diversity awareness throughout the force. Ethnic Liaison Officers have been trained and ethnic and cultural diversity is included as a strategic goal in the Corporate Strategy. Conferences on the topic were held in 2006 and 2007. The force has produced a Diversity Strategy document for the years 2009-2012, establishing the framework under which diversity is to be tackled and outlines that the approach is predicated on the concept of ‘diversity beyond legalism.’ The CAO of the Gardaí is to be appointed Diversity Champion, a Diversity Strategy Board is to be created, a Diversity Management Unity will have responsibility for internal issues arising and the (now) Garda Racial, Intercultural and Diversity Office will have responsibility for external diversity issues. The training to be provided to all Gardaí is outlined, as well as the evaluation of that training and a positive focus on issues of retention as well as recruitment. Of concern, perhaps, within this document is the presentation of work in this area as ‘above all, focused on following a business case for Diversity.’ As with so many other documents relating to reform within an Garda Síochána, what is entirely lacking is an ethical commitment to the work, only through which, it is argued, sustainable change can be implemented. The training of all staff is presented as a minimal requirement yet the report states that just 250 members of an Garda Síochána have, to date, undergone Diversity Training. Out of an organisation with 14,000 members this is a small proportion.

Concerns that the force is not adequately addressing problems with respect to diversity are, it appears, justified.

Following on from very many successful road safety campaigns in Norfolk (which have almost halved the annual number of road deaths) we have now launched a timely Christmas Greetings reminder………….i.e. please dont drink and drive!  You may not kill or damage yourself and all the terrible consequences that will then ensue………but what usually happens is that it is the innocent bystander that is hurt and it is their family that bear the consequences.

Sign up for the Norfolk THINK!  Festive Drink Campaign

Following recent discussion, a number of leading surveillance researchers have signed and issued the following ‘Vancouver Statement’ of which I did the first draft (followed by multiple revisions from many hands!). If you are a researcher who has done any work on mega-event security and surveillance, and agree with the statement, you are encouraged to send your name and affiliation to Adam Molnar at UVic. It is being press-released and hopefully discussed in the BC Legislative Assembly.

The Vancouver Statement of Surveillance, Security and Privacy Researchers about the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games

As researchers from Canada and the wider world, who are conducting research on the global security dynamics of mega-events, we agree:

• that the Olympic Games should be a celebration of human achievement, friendship and trust between people and nations.

However, having analysed past and planned Olympics and other mega events, from a variety of historical and international perspectives, we recognise:

• that recent Games have increasingly taken place in and contributed to a climate of fear, heightened security and surveillance; and
• that this has often been to the detriment of democracy, transparency and human rights, with serious implications for international, national and local norms and laws.

Therefore, we ask the City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada:

• to moderate the escalation of security measures for Vancouver 2010 and to strive to respect the true spirit of the event;
• to be as open as possible about the necessary security and surveillance practices and rationales;
• to withdraw temporary bylaws that restrict Charter rights of freedom of speech and assembly;
• to work constructively with the Provincial and Federal Privacy Commissioners;
• to respect the rights of all individuals and groups, whether they be local people or visitors, and pay particular attention to the impacts on vulnerable people;
• to conduct a full, independent public assessment of the security and surveillance measures, once the Games are over, addressing their costs (financial and otherwise), their effectiveness, and lessons to be learned for future mega-events;
• not to assume a permanent legacy of increased video surveillance and hardened security measures in the Vancouver/Whistler area, and to have full and open public discussion on any such proposed legacy.

We hope that these recommendations will contribute to a unique and positive Olympic legacy by which Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada will be remembered for setting the highest ethical standards.

For further information, contact:

Richard Smith, tel: 778-782-5116; or Colin Bennett

And there’s now more on Richard’s blog!

A report published today by the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) in the United Kingdom, which advises the government in that jurisdiction in relation to genetic issues, contains a claim that police officers deliberately arrest people in order to get DNA samples from them to add to the DNA database. The claim, put forward by an unnamed retired police superintendent, is contained in a report entitled “Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear?”.

Obviously, it is difficult to investigate the truth of the claim that persons are being arrested solely for the purpose of obtaining DNA samples where they would not be arrested in other circumstances, and indeed, such a claim has been denied by the Association of Chief Police Officers. However, the Chairman of the HGC, Professor Jonathan Montgomery, has admitted that there is some evidence to substantiate the allegation. Professor Montgomery has also suggested that the DNA database in the UK has suffered from “function creep” since its introduction in 1995, evolving from a database of offenders into a database of suspects. Liberty’s director of policy Isabella Sankey has also observed the extent of the use currently being made of DNA databases and the manner in which policing decisions can be influenced:

Not only are we stockpiling the most sensitive information of innocents who have never been charged, let alone convicted, we are also creating a perverse incentive for officers to arrest the innocent.

The UK DNA database is the largest of its kind in the world and this is not the first time that it has been the subject of controversy and debate, although Professor Montgomery suggests that there has not been enough public or parliamentary debate on the issue.

Just short of a year ago, in December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled against the United Kingdom in the highly significant case of S and Marper v United Kingdom. This case arose out of the indefinite retention on the DNA database of samples taken from the applicants, despite the fact that in the case of the first applicant there was a full acquittal at trial and in the case of the second applicant proceedings were discontinued. While the House of Lords had held against the applicants, ultimately, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in a unanimous decision, held that such indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of persons who have not been convicted of any criminal offence amounted to a violation of Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the right to respect for private life.

Resultantly, while DNA profiles extracted from samples taken from persons who are ultimately convicted may be retained on a DNA database indefinitely, those relating to persons who are ultimately acquitted or against whom proceedings are not instituted or are discontinued, cannot be indefinitely held. Just last week, the Crime and Security Bill 2009 was introduced in the UK, containing a proposed time limit of 6 years for the retention of DNA profiles of persons in this latter category. After 6 years all such profiles would have to be destroyed.

In Ireland, under the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2006, bodily samples and any information drawn therefrom (e.g. DNA profiles) must be destroyed at the expiration of 12months from the taking of such samples if proceedings are not instituted against the relevant suspect and the failure to institute the proceedings within that period is not due to the fact that he has absconded or cannot be found. If proceedings are instituted within 12 months and the suspect is thereafter acquitted or discharged or the proceedings are discontinued, the relevant samples or record of information drawn from such samples must be destroyed within 21 days. This is much more restrictive in terms of time limits than the proposed legislation put forward at present in the UK.

The Irish experience of the taking and use of DNA evidence has not been without its controversies, nonetheless. One recent case which examined some relevant issues was People (DPP) v Boyce [2005] I.E.C.C.A. 143; [2008] IESC 62. The accused in this case was convicted in the Central Criminal Court of six counts of rape, attempted rape, indecent assault or sexual assault. A question arose as to the manner in which a blood sample had been taken from the accused in the pre-trial period and as to whether or not such a sample could be taken with the consent of the accused, outside of the statutory requirements of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990. The defence argued that where a person was arrested on suspicion of the commission of an offence under legislation to which the 1990 Act applied, then the statutory regime had to be followed. Both the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Supreme Court, however, held that the 1990 Act was an addition to the common law power to take samples with consent, not a replacement for that power. Therefore, it was held that where there is consent to the taking of a sample (a blood sample in this case, but presumably the principle applies equally to other bodily samples) there is no need to satisfy the requirements of the 1990 Act.

Fennelly J., dissenting in the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the notion that the carefully thought-out scheme within the 1990 Act could be set at nought was “absurd”. Writing elsewhere, Michael O’Higgins SC has suggested that this was

an example of a case where one might have said, was the Supreme Court going to stand up and be counted, by saying that the 1990 Act was passed for a very good reason, but that it had been circumvented.

It seems it was not.

Another controversy in forensic sampling in Ireland relates to the use which can be made of forensic material which has been unlawfully retained and ought to have been destroyed. This arose in the case of DPP (Walsh) v Cash, which is currently before the Supreme Court and was previously highlighted on this blog here. It concerns fingerprint evidence which ought to have been destroyed but was in fact kept on the Garda Technical Bureau database. The fingerprint was used to identify a suspect in a burglary which subsequently occurred and he was arrested and fingerprinted again. The current appeal relates to whether or not the unlawful, and possibly unconstitutional, retention of the fingerprints ought to have led to the exclusion of all other evidence subsequently gathered in the case. In the High Court, Charleton J. held that the evidence was correctly admitted at trial and that

evidence resulting from a detention based upon a suspicion that cannot be proved as being founded entirely upon evidence lawfully obtained is not, for that reason, made unlawful.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will be of the same opinion.

Returning to the report of the HGC in the UK, that body has suggested that there is need for greater clarity as to when it is appropriate to take a DNA sample from arrested persons. Such clarity may well be of benefit in the Irish context too. More generally it seems clear that all jurisdictions which operate DNA databases ought to be aware of the dangers of function creep and the potential impact which the use of such databases can have on the exercise of police discretion.

The UK’s DNA database, already under fire by the European Court of Human Right for retaining samples and data from innocent people, has now been lambasted in a report by the government’s own genetics watchdog. The Human Genetics Commission.

The report, called Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear? contains a numbers of serious criticisms, most notably the finding that police forces around Britain are routinely arresting people simply in order to obtain their DNA. Almost a million innocent people, including many children, are now on the database, and the ECHR ruling has finally prompted the government to make some minor concessions, such as keeping the DNA of innocent people for 6 years as opposed to 12, but there appears to have been no fundamental change in police practice, nor any change in the instructions given to local forces on best practice.

It’s main recommendations are:

1. that there should be a parliamentary debate about the recording of what it calls ‘unconvicted’ people;
2. that because the purpose of the database has shifted over time, there should be constraints set out in new primary legislation;
3. that “robust evidence of the ‘forensic utility’ of the database should be produced to justify the resource cost and interference with individual privacy it represents”; and,
4. that there should be an independent oversight board and appeals board to consider removal of profiles; and transparency over data and other issues.

These are all laudable,  but I really start to question their judgement in using the term ‘unconvicted people’. British law has always worked on the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. People are therefore ‘innocent’ until they have a conviction. The term ‘unconvicted’ seems to imply that innocence is no longer an assumption, and that the working hypothesis is that everyone is either guilty or not yet (therefore, potentially) guilty. This is what results from the normalisation of surveillance in everyday life, and it’s one thing we warned most strongly against in our own Report on the Surveillance Society back in 2006. When even critical reports start using language that reflects the worldview of the people they are criticising, you have to be concerned.

Calling people ‘unconvicted’ and not ‘innocent’ matters.

Like many Ilkeston, I had a leaflet dropped through my door announcing the action the local police had taken on the following:

• Anti-social behaviour on the school routes
• Drunk people in the town centre
• Unsafe driving in Ilkeston

Personally, I have seen little improvement – inebriated people still squeal and shout as they walk past my house in the early hours, cars and buses are still speeding along our street.  I can’t comment on the school routes as I am neither on one nor in the area at those times!  I’d be really interested on your comments, whether you have noticed a change for the better or worse.

If you want to voice your opinions directly to the police, they are holding their next Neighbourhood Panel meeting at:

Tuesday 24 November 2009
7pm til 8.30pm
The Old Police Station,
Wharncliffe Road
Ilkeston

I’ve compiled a list of panels and individual papers on security and policing-related issues at the upcoming AAA meetings.  You can see them below.

I’d like to give a special shout-out to the panel THE END/S OF POLICING: ETHNOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES ON POLICE POWER (Fri., 8:00-9:45 AM in rm 406) organized by the newest anthropolitician, William Garriott of James Madison University, also featuring myself, Michelle Stewart, Thom Chivens, Eva Harmon and Mindie Lazarus-Black of Temple University.  It should be good times.

Other than that, the following look interesting (panels are in bold):

Wed, 12/2

• 12-1:45 pm, STATE SECURITY SCIENCES
  • 12pm, Limor Darash, “UNFOLDING THE STATE: STATE FORMS OF ACTION IN PREPAREDNESS FOR BIOLOGICAL EVENTS“
• 12:30pm, Christen Smith “VIOLENCE, THE BLACK BODY AND THE CONTRADICTIONS OF MULTICULTURALISM AND THE STATE IN BRAZIL “
• 2:45pm, Lisa Meierotto, “CONSERVING CABEZA PRIETA: MIGRATION AND HOMELAND SECURITY IN A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE“
• 8:15pm, Sameena Mulla “PUTREFACTION AND PRESERVATION: TECHNOLOGIES OF CARE AND THE SEXUALLY VIOLATED SUBJECT“
• 8:15pm, Andrea Morrell, “BRINGING THE PRISON HOME: GENDERED CAREWORK AND THE SOCIAL REPRODUCTION OF CONFINEMENT“
• 8:30pm, Jong Bum Kwon, “ARRESTED FOR LOITERING: POLICE ORDER AND THE AMBIGUITIES OF SPATIAL-POLITICAL POSITIONING IN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH OF POLITICAL PROTEST“

Thurs, 12/3

• 8:15am, Jack Murphy ““SARKO, UP YOURS!”: INTERROGATING THE ASYMMETRICAL APPEAL OF NICOLAS SARKOZY DURING THE FALL 2005 RIOTS IN FRANCE”
• 9:00am, Vida Bajc, “THE SECURITY STATE AND THE LIMITS OF CITIZENSHIP“
• 2:45pm, Alana Smith “CITIZEN/TERRORIST: SECURITY PROBLEMS OF THE BIOPOLITICAL STATE“

Friday, 12/4

• 8:00-9:45am,  THE END/S OF POLICING: ETHNOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES ON POLICE POWER (see above)
  • 8am, Thomas Chivens, “SECURITY’S DISPLACE AT ETHNOGRAPHY’S END/S“
  • 8:15am, Michelle Stewart, “POLICING AND CARE: “PROLIFIC OFFENDER MANAGEMENT” IN CANADA“
  • 8:30am, William Garriott, “POLICE SCANNERS AND THE POETICS OF COUNTER-SURVEILLANCE“
  • 8:45am, Eva Harmon, “POLICING WITH IRELAND’S NEW MINORITY COMMUNITIES“
  • 9:00am, Kevin Karpiak, “POLICE/STATE: WHAT FRENCH POLICE REFORM CAN TELL US ABOUT CONTEMPORARY RE-FIGURATIONS OF STATE AND SOCIETY“
  • 9:15am, Mindie Lazarus-Black (discussant)
• 10:15am-12pm, TOWARD A MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AGAINST MILITARISM
  • Charles Briggs, “IS MILITARISM WORSE FOR YOUR HEALTH THAN CAPITALISM? BIOSECURITY AND THE CIRCULATION OF KNOWLEDGE”
• 12:15-1:30pm, CA PUBLIC ADVISORY BOARD SESSION 1: THEMATIZING SECURITY (see the previous posts as well)
• 1:45-5:30pm, MAKING DAILY LIFE DEADLY: THE MILITARIZATION OF EVERYDAY LIFE, NORTH AND SOUTH
  • 2:00pm Phillipe Bourgois, “THE U.S. WAR ON DRUGS: JUST ANOTHER NIGHT IN A NORTH PHILADELPHIA JAIL“
  • 2:15pm Didier Fassin, “THE MORAL ECONOMY OF THE POLICE: THE EVERYNIGHT SECURITIZING OF THE FRENCH BANLIEUE“
  • 2:30, Loic Wacquant, “MEAN STATE: THE MILITARIZATION OF MARGINALITY IN THE BLACK AMERICAN GHETTO AND THE BRAZILIAN FAVELA“
  • 3:30 Nancy Scheper-Hughes, “AFTER THE DEATH SQUADS IN NEOLIBERAL BRAZIL: FACE TO FACE WITH ABIDORAL QUEIROZ“
  • 3:45pm Beatriz Manzz, “THE RESURGENCE OF DEATH SQUADS IN POST-WAR GUATEMALA“
  • 4:00pm Roger Lancaster, “SEX PANIC AND THE PUNITIVE STATE: HOW FEAR UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA“
  • 4:15 Hugh Gusterson, “TRUTH DETECTION AT LARGE“
• 2:45pm, Aleksandra Milicevic “INTERROGATED INTERVIEWER: WHAT DID I LEARN FROM SECRET POLICE?”
• 4-5:45pm, SECURITY: THEORY, PRACTICE, CONTRADICTION
  • 4:15pm, Robert Albro, “THE CULTURE DOCTRINE: MILITARY CULTURE AND THE MILITARY’S CULTURE CONCEPT“
  • 4:30pm, Laura McNamara, ““IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL IN ADVANCE:” COMPUTATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE, PREDICTION, AND POLICYMAKING“
  • 4:45pm, Asaf Harel, “MIRACULOUS SECURITIES: THE CASE OF JEWISH SETTLERS IN THE GAZA STRIP“
  • 5:00pm, Stephen Collier, “THE SECURITY OF VITAL SYSTEMS“
• 5:00pm, Heather Hindman, “MEDIATING SECURITY POLICY IN KATHMANDU“

Saturday, 12/5

• 9am, Hager El Hadidi, “URBAN RENEWAL AS ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AND POLICE SURVEILLANCE: THE TRANSFORMATION OF SACRED SPACE EXPERIENCE IN CAIRO“
• 10:15am-12pm, THE PARADOX OF SECURITY IN WAR AND PEACE

Sunday, 12/6

• 8-9:45am, MIGRATION, SECURITY AND BELONGING IN NEOLIBERAL EUROPE
• 8-9:45am, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND THE SECURITY SECTOR: A DIALOGUE WITH THE LARGER ANTHROPOLOGICAL COMMUNITY
• 10:15am-12pm THE POWER, INTIMACY AND ENVY OF POLICE-MILITARY RELATIONS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN STATE
  • 10:15am, Jacqueline Baker, “THE VULGARITY OF PERSUASIVE RULE: POWER AND LONGING IN THE REORGANISATION OF THE COERCIVE APPARATUS OF THE INDONESIAN STATE“
  • 10:30am, Vicki (Bu) Wilson, “REGULATORY RITUALISM IN REFORM OF THE SECURITY SECTOR IN TIMOR-LESTE“
  • 10:45am, Eric Haanstad, “THE INTIMATE RIVALRY OF GREEN AND BLUE: THAI AND CAMBODIAN STATE SECURITY FORCES IN COMPARATIVE CONFLICT“
  • 11:00am, Aries Arugay, “ASYMMETRICAL COLLABORATION OR LOPSIDED COMPETITION? MILITARY-POLICE RELATIONS IN PHILIPPINE COUNTERINSURGENCY CAMPAIGNS“
• 10:45am, Maria Sierra, “GUERRERO’S COMMUNITY POLICE: INDIGENOUS WOMEN CONFRONTING GENDER OPPRESSION AND DISPUTING RIGHTS WITHIN THE MOVEMENT FOR COMMUNITY JUSTICE“
• 11:15am, Elana Zilberg, “NEOLIBERAL SECURITYSCAPES: TRANSNATIONAL MASCULINITIES AND VIOLENCE BETWEEN THE US AND EL SALVADOR“

As always, if you’re giving a paper or are on a panel that you think should be included in this list, just let me know in the comments section and I’ll add you…

While our poor little diddums council officer-wofficers struggly-wuggly to get their worksy-woo done in good time to allow proper democratic oversight of their work, there’s no such problems in Derby.

Their gormless councillors agreed on Wednesday night to try and become a World Cup host city without a suspension of normal democratic procedures in sight.

But more to the point, not only are their officers faster and more efficient than our lot, they also provided vastly superior information, including a simple to understand handout (Appendix 2) on just how dodgy their city’s ‘Host City Agreement‘ with FIFA was going to be.

Here it is. It’s eye-watering in parts:

SUMMARY OF MAIN UNFAVOURABLE TERMS IN THE HOST CITY AGREEMENT

Development of Host City Obligations

1. FIFA reserves the right to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement

2. The Host Authority must comply with and bear the cost of implementing any guidelines/directions/instructions issued by FIFA at a later stage.

Absence of Compensation/Liability

3. FIFA and the LOC have the right to terminate the Host Agreement without compensation if the Stadium Agreement or Host Agreement is terminated for whatever reason.

4. In the event of a match or several matches being cancelled FIFA or the LOC will be under no obligation to compensate the Host City in any manner.

5. FIFA nor the LOC will be liable for any loss caused to the Host City even if it has been caused by the formers negligence.

Protection of Commercial Rights

6. The Host City must enact by-laws and regulations to prevent unauthorised third parties undertaking “Ambush Marketing”.

7. The Host City must appoint staff to assist FIFA in the protection and enforcement of commercial rights such as media, marketing and intellectual property rights.

8. Host Cities must warrant not to enter into any agreement that would restrict or prohibit FIFA, LOC or any of their Commercial affiliates, service providers or commercial rights holders from exercising their rights.

Host City Support

9. The Host City must provide support and assistance to FIFA in relation to the hosting and staging of the competition.

Controlled Area

10. Within the “Controlled Area” surrounding the stadium where the matches will be played the Host City must ensure that any advertisements are removed or fully covered, no sale of food, drink or souvenirs, etc is allowed and that existing permits and concessions and licences are suspended.

Host City Dressing

11. The Host City must 2 years prior to the World Cup submit for FIFA and LOC written approval a detailed plan of how it will comply with its “Host City dressing” obligation (ie comply with FIFA official decoration programme) which the Host City must at its cost be responsible for installing, maintaining and dismantling.

Traffic Plan

12. No later that 3 years prior to the World Cup the Host City must provide the LOC with a traffic management plan which it must implement at its own cost and pass all necessary by laws to implement.

I think my favourite one is, “The Host City must appoint staff to assist FIFA in the protection and enforcement of commercial rights.”

This means they’re gonna spend my council tax employing an army of little Hitler’s to march around with clipboards protecting McDonald’s exclusive advertising rights. What a sensible use of tax payers money.

It’s almost enough to make you want them to win the bid isn’t it? A month’s entrenched warfare between the city’s subvertisers and graffiti writers and suited and booted city council/McDonald’s private pseudo-cops would be quite something.

Must remember to invite Banksy along if we get it too ..

Another great audit report from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner here in Canada, investigating the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (Fintrac) has just been released. Fintrac, created in 2001 in the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and now with even more extended powers, operates a databases which is supposed to contain details of those suspected of supporting terrorism or money laundering (often on behalf of major criminal and terrorist groups).

However, there is a good story in The Globe and Mail today which leads on the most worrying aspect identified by the audit, which is that in many cases, the Fintrac database is massively overreliant on unsubstantiated suspicions from low-level functionaries in banks, insurance firms and credit agencies. Some of these ’suspicions’ were clearly simple prejudice as they appeared to be based entirely on ethnicity. Part of the problem is that there are no clear guidelines as to what constitutes a reasonable suspicion in the legislation.

But being put on the database can have serious consequences, firstly because of the potential penalties involved (up to $2m CAN fines and 5-years imprisonment) and secondly, because the information in the Fintrac database can be accessed by Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police  (the RCMP – Canada’s FBI) or shared with overseas police and intelligence services. In the latter case, as we already know, mounting errors can result in innocent people being subject to ever more harsh treatment including being excluded from countries, placed on no-fly lists or even the UN1267 ‘known terrorists and affiliates’ list, as well as, in the worst cases, opening them up to extraordinary rendition, imprisonment and torture.

Jennifer Stoddart, the current Privacy Commissioner, has a well-deserved reputation getting positive changes made, so let’s hope she can persuade Fintrac to get this sorted out pretty soon.

American unions are starting to like the idea of workers’ cooperatives.

In America, smokers have their own geography.

When it comes to climate change, latitude matters.

Military tactics used in Iraq may come to the streets of California.

The future of cartography is social media.