Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Government, Scotland, Society, Technology

Body cameras are an essential tool for police officers

POLICE SCOTLAND

PoliceCam2

Digital cameras are an essential accessory for police officers. They would be useful in the prevention and detection of crime.

Police Scotland have been conducting trials in the north east of video cameras attached to their uniforms. This follows the lead of several other British forces, including the Metropolitan Police in London.

Consideration is now being given to a roll-out of the technology which has been long proved as an effective tool in convicting wrong-doers. British Transport Police (BTP) has also demonstrated its usefulness, not least in Scotland.

Over the last nine years, deployment of body-worn cameras by BTP have been utilised on both the rail network and Glasgow subway, particularly so during major sporting fixtures. Their use has shown cameras can protect officers and improve the evidence for the prosecution.

Support for body cameras has been openly voiced by the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, which said they could bring vast economy savings to the justice system by increasing the number of early guilty pleas.

That in itself could significantly free up precious police time by relieving officers of the need to spend hours in court – waiting to provide oral testimonies and evidence they are never called on to give – because the accused has decided to change their plea at the last minute.

Ministers, too, have highlighted the merits of making better use of digital cameras, particularly in relation to gathering additional evidence that could be used in court.

The Scottish Government’s digital justice strategy, written some three years ago, said they would also enable officers to make better operational decisions, help to increase the personal safety of police officers, and that such accessories would be useful in the prevention and detection of crime.

Such a stance has also received the endorsement of Police Scotland Chief Constable Phil Gormley, who added that regular use of body cameras would result in fewer complaints against officers, with a likely increase in public confidence of the police service. Police routinely receive abuse from members of the public, but if those people are on camera, they may well think twice before doing so.

The main problem with greater use of cameras is the cost involved when the force’s budget is so stretched, as has been raised by the Scottish Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers.

Technical challenges also exist in getting the equipment up and running, issues of technological reliability, and the storage and accessibility of digital footage.

If the pilot scheme in the north east of Scotland has ultimately been a success, however, then it makes great sense to spread the practice across the rest of the country. Where technology is available to improve law and order, it should be made available to our officers to help them fulfil their duties – particularly given the precarious and dangerous situations officers can sometimes find themselves in.

Appendage:

PoliceCam1

 

Standard
Britain, Government, North Korea, Politics, Society

UK hands £4million in foreign aid to North Korea

BRITISH FOREIGN AID

It has emerged that Britain has sent more than £4million in foreign aid to North Korea in the past six years despite the communist regime’s threat to spark nuclear war.

Official figures reveal the UK spent £740,000 of taxpayers’ money on aid projects in the despotic regime in 2015 alone – a 167 per cent increase on the previous year.

The Foreign Office, which is responsible for most of the spending, has said it had no plans to axe the aid programme.

While there is little evidence that aid payments to North Korea have had much impact since the payments to the country began to be increased in 2010, some believe that aid could help improve relations with the pariah state.

The money also counts towards the Government’s controversial target of spending 0.7 per cent of Britain’s income on international development.

It is believed that ministers are now facing fresh calls to end all aid to North Korea in response to the increasingly bellicose threats from dictator Kim Jong-un. A view gaining traction is that it is unacceptable to hand taxpayers’ money to a country bent on attacking the West and its allies.

Sir Gerald Howarth, former Tory defence minister, said: ‘It is completely absurd to be giving aid to North Korea at this time… There are some very poor people there because of the regime’s actions, but the country is a communist basket case.

‘They are trying to build a nuclear missile to hit the United States, they are destabilising the entire region. Why on earth are we giving them aid?’

Sir Gerald said the case highlighted the problems caused by the 0.7 per cent aid target, which was enshrined in law by the Coalition government.

He added: ‘Ridiculous cases like this are just more evidence of the need to re-examine the whole basis of the aid programme. We need to repeal the legislation, slash the aid budget dramatically and spend the money on priorities like defence and social care.’

The prominent UKIP donor Arron Banks described the spending on North Korea as ‘shocking’.

‘In the past, we’ve had issues with the wastefulness of the foreign aid budget, but this is beyond ridiculous,’ he said.

‘While we funnel money into this failing state, they are spending most of their resources developing nuclear weapons designed to wipe us off the map.

‘What’s next? Giving foreign aid to Islamic State?’ The aid programme is also potentially embarrassing for Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who has warned the despotic regime it ‘must stop these belligerent acts and comply with UN resolutions’ after a failed missile test last weekend.

North Korea has been upping the ante again this week in its stand-off with the West, telling the United Nations that ‘nuclear war may break out at any moment’.

But the Foreign Office insists its aid policy is helping to improve relations with the communist country.

In 2009, British aid to North Korea stood at just £32,000.

But spending was increased rapidly by the Coalition government from 2010 onwards as it pursued the new aid target. In the past six years, more than £4million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on aid projects in the country, with spending peaking at £1.3million in 2013.

Projects include schemes designed to promote Western values – such as English lessons for regime officials and workshops for entrepreneurs.

But money has also been spent on projects to provide equipment and training for physiotherapy units in the country, potentially allowing the regime to free up resources to spend on its murderous military programme.

The Foreign Office has defended the programme, and has stressed that money is spent on individual schemes rather than handed directly to the regime.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: ‘The projects we carry out in North Korea are part of our policy of critical engagement, and are used to promote British values and demonstrate to the North Korean people that engaging with the UK and the outside world is an opportunity rather than a threat.

‘We conduct a range of small-scale project work, many of which help to improve the lives of the most vulnerable members of society.’

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Foreign aid spending now includes the black economy

FOREIGN AID BUDGET

The foreign aid budget soared by £1.2billion last year – because EU rules added prostitution and drugs to national statistics.

Under targets brought in by the former prime minister David Cameron, ministers are committed to sending 0.7 per cent of our national income overseas every year.

With the Brussels-led accounting change raising estimates of the size of the UK economy, the foreign aid bill has gone up.

Figures recently released showed spending jumped by 10 per cent to a record £13.3billion last year. The surge will raise pressure on the Government to scrap the aid promise at a time when vital services at home are being so tightly controlled.

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell insists the 0.7 per cent target must go. He has said that the UK should play its part in global development when there is a genuine need, but we should not be tied to this arbitrary figure, which increases year by year – while at the same time we reduce funding for essential services in Britain.

‘There is little public support for this policy now and it’s time to ditch it.’ Other MPs have also criticised the way officials have included illegal activity such as prostitution when working out the size of the economy, meaning the aid spending also had to rise. As we should realise, the black economy does not pay tax.

The Department for International Development is the only government department that is judged by how much money it shovels out the door. Conservatives judge the effectiveness of government policies on outcomes, not on how much is spent. The foreign aid budget clearly runs contrary to this.

The ultimate irony is that this giant leap in aid spending is partly due to illicit activities such as drug dealing. Such a huge jump in the already bloated budget will cause outrage among many British taxpayers. We should not have targets that are measured purely on spending money.

Britain was last year one of only six major donors that met or exceeded the UN’s target for international aid spending. Our aid budget has more than doubled from the £6.4billion spent in 2008.

Foreign aid is calculated according to gross national income (GNI), which reached £1.9trillion last year after the economy grew and officials tweaked the way it was estimated, to follow EU accounting rules. The new calculations have given more weight to financial services and activities such as research and development – which the UK does well. They also include the value of the black-market economy such as drugs and prostitution.

Around £525million of the rise was because of economic growth and about £685million was because of the change in the accounting method. The £1.2billion boost to the aid budget is the biggest annual increase since 2013, when ministers raised spending by £2.6billion to meet the legal 0.7 per cent target.

As the GNI figure rose by 10 per cent compared with 2015, spending on aid had to rise by the same proportion.

A Government spokesman said: ‘Our international development budget only increases when the UK economy grows, a sign of our economic success. This money is an investment in Britain’s own security – ensuring the world is more prosperous, developed and stable.

‘Whether it’s stepping up our support for Syrian refugees, tackling the legacy of landmines or giving life-saving aid to stop people dying of hunger in East Africa, UK aid is keeping Britain safe while helping the world’s poorest.’

OPINION

With no end in sight to austerity and budgets cuts at home, the country’s ever-increasing overseas aid budget was always an affront to common sense. But the recent revelation that it grew last year by a staggering 10 per cent – outstripping economic growth five times over – takes it far beyond parody, and into the realms of the morally offensive.

We face huge financial pressures at home, while the wider world looks ever more dangerous. Yet drowning in debt, we’ve cut defences to the bone – and now there is even speculation that the strength of the Royal Marines will be slashed from a strength of 7,000 to a mere 5,000.

Yet aid spending keeps growing inexorably, pegged at 0.7 per cent of the country’s output by a law introduced by the coalition government of David Cameron and Nick Clegg to make them feel good about themselves.

Piling on the absurdity, the latest massive increase – to £13.35billion – is due to a nonsensical change in the way we calculate Britain’s output. Ordered by the EU, the new formula insists prostitution and drug-dealing must be taken into account – trades not noted for their contributions to income tax.

Yet even before this change, aid ministers had more money than they knew how to spend, splashing out £1.34billion to private contractors, filling the pockets of Third World dictators and even doling out ATM cards to citizens of Third World countries in their desperation to meet the target.

The British are a law-abiding people. But if this kind of insanity persists, whereby the elderly of this country suffers while our taxes are squandered so indiscriminately abroad, many should begin to question why they pay those taxes in the first place.

Standard