Is the Government risking lives to save face?
…the senior policeman in charge of speed cameras in England and Wales, Richard Brunstrom, chief constable for North Wales, had just sent a remarkable confidential letter to all police forces and local authorities, revealing just how unnerved those running the speed-camera campaign had become at charges that their policy had failed in its aim of reducing accidents.
Signing himself as “Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers Roads Policing Business Area”, Brunstrom instructed all responsible for operating speed cameras – which in 2003 were raising more than £120 million from two million motorists – that they must on no account respond to any further requests for factual information from Safe Speed’s Paul Smith.
On what grounds?
Smith’s offence, according to Brunstrom, was that his “sole intent seems to be to discredit Government policy”.
God forbid!
He had not only “inundated” the DfT and police forces with requests for information, but then published their replies on the internet.
Outrageous.
Brunstrom was also concerned that dozens of serving police officers had contacted Smith to express their personal concern at the way reliance on cameras has become a substitute for a road safety policy which, until 10 years previously, had been acclaimed as the most successful in the world.
In 2004 Smith was able to reveal even worse news for the government. For some time he had argued that, far from reducing the risk of accidents, speed cameras actually increased it, by distracting drivers and causing them to act unpredictably. This was now confirmed by another report from the TRL, Report 595, commissioned by the Highways Agency, looking into the effect of cameras on motorways.
The TRL had found that, where fixed cameras were installed at road works, the risk of accidents giving rise to injury was increased by 55 per cent. Where fixed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk was increased by 31 per cent. In general, fatal and serious crashes were 32 per cent more likely where cameras were being operated. But conventional police patrols reduced the risk of crashes by 27 per cent at road works, and 10 per cent elsewhere.
The report bore out precisely the case Smith had been making. But the DfT had ruled that it was not to be published. If a copy had not been passed to Smith, to be reported on the Safe Speed website, it might never have seen the light of day. …
As ever, don’t take anyone’s word for it. Try to check it out for yourself. What are facts and figures? What are the motivations of the people and organisations involved?
A thoughtful article on discouraging dissent
Another thoughtful article by Tony Collins at Computer Weekly, this time about the Government discouraging dissenting viewpoints.
It shows that it isn’t just legislation that makes a difference:
The Department of Health has the right to fire off as many complaints as its officials want to write; and the BBC and other broadcasters are big enough to defend themselves.
But as media organisations try to do more with fewer staff, time becomes more of a consideration when deciding what subjects to cover. If reporting the NPfIT means factoring in time to respond to woolly or argumentative complaints from Whitehall, producers and journalists may be less inclined to cover the NPfIT – unless they decide to report on it from a wholly positive perspective. Which is what the Department of Health wants.
There are more subtle actions than legislation that can also have a chilling effect on speech.
On statistics and context
Tony Collins of Computer Weekly writes of statistics,
…statistics in support of claims that the NHS’s National Programme for IT [NPfIT] is a success are almost as meaningless [as a claim that “61,778 new traffic lights have been installed”].
Angela Eagle [Health Minister] told Parliament:
“Without the [NPfIT] programme, the NHS could no longer function, and it is already providing essential services and significant benefits to tens of thousands of clinicians and millions of patients. It is therefore a success story that ought to be acknowledged.“For example, more than 5.5 million appointments have now been made using the choose and book system, representing 44 per cent of first referrals. In addition, 397 million diagnostic images are now stored centrally, and 42 million electronic prescriptions have been used in a service that is now available in 41 per cent of pharmacies and 47 per cent of GP surgeries.
“Nearly 400,000 users are registered to use the NHS care records spine, with 45,000 NHS staff accessing it daily….”
If statistics were quoted with frankness and context, they could mean a little more.
…
Of course, they aren’t particularly interested in us knowing what the statistics mean – their motivation is one of persuasion, not information, they are trying to impress us and win us over.
Over 85% of all GP practices have used Choose and Book to refer their patients to hospital
Very impressive at first glance, isn’t it? But what does it mean? Some of the practices might have used it only once, or very infrequently. Of course, 85% might use it all the time. But without the context how do we know?
So I think it’s important to look beyond these eye-catching numbers, realise the primary motivation here, and ask for the context.
My article on rape statistics might be of interest, as well as Anthony’s response.
Arrested under Official Secrets Act but charged under Explosives Act
The Guardian (Press Association):
A 23-year-old man who was arrested under the Official Secrets Act has been charged with possessing explosives.
Risk analyst Peter Stephen Hill, of Lambert Street, Skipton, North Yorkshire, will appear before magistrates in Leeds next week.
Hill was arrested in Leeds on Wednesday by officers from the Metropolitan Police.
Scotland Yard confirmed he had been charged under section four of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
Some reports are saying he was charged under the Explosives Act 1993. There isn’t an Explosive Substances Act 1993. There is an Explosive Substances Act 1883, and an Explosives Act 1875 (CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors: Explosives).
The charge alleges that on November 8, in Skipton, “you had knowingly in your possession or under your control an explosive substance, namely component parts including sodium chlorate, sugar, hexamine tablets, matches, bearings, a metal hollow tube and acetone, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you are not making it or did not have it in your possession or under your control for a lawful object.”
Although Hill is being held in custody in relation to the explosives matter he was technically bailed on the Official Secrets Act matter until April next year.
It is understood the explosives allegations do not relate to any suspected terrorist-related activity.
Hill will appear before magistrates in Leeds on Monday.
These all look suspicious (well, except matches and sugar – perhaps he was making a chocolate bombe). But sodium chlorate is used as a weedkiller; hexamine seems to have several uses, but most commonly as a fuel tablet used by campers and the military, and Hill used to be in the Territorial Army; matches, well it would be a rare home that didn’t have matches; bearings can be found in bicycles and other things with moving parts; metal hollow tubes make up a large part of my central heating system and scaffolding; and acetone is commonly used as a nail polish remover. All fairly common household objects, I imagine, except for hexamine.
I’d like to be able to balance this article by informing you that the above ‘components’ could be used to make an explosive device, but I don’t want to be accused of making available information that could be of use to terrorists, so I won’t.
I wonder if he had in fact made an explosive device, or merely possessed those potential components. A later article seems to claim the latter:
It is alleged he had in his possession a number of materials which if combined together could allegedly make an explosive device.
But s4 seems to require an actual substance:
4 (1) Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be guilty of felony, and, on conviction, shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years…, and the explosive substance shall be forfeited. (Swarb)
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
An analysis of a ‘system failure’ leading to the shooting of de Menezes
The first in the list of responses is interesting:
It used to be the case that mainstream media would present this sort of thoughtful, detailed analysis of high profile stories, trying to cut through the headlines and present the story as it was.
It worries me beyond anything that despite (or, more likely, because of) the expansion in news outlets, rolling news and so on, the most reliable sources of news for me now are Private Eye and The Register.
he most conspicuous symptom of the bankruptcy of news media today is Newsnight: it used to be that once or twice a week there would be a “Newsnight Special Report” where a journalist would have been given time and budget to investigate a topic/story and prepare their own television “essay” on the subject – Charles Wheeler’s reports stay in the memory. These reports are now very rare, a victim of the “Salami cuts” which have just reduced every budget head.
Thank heavens there are still outlets for mature analysis and commentary, albeit in the “less conventional” parts of the media.
UK Liberty 
leave a comment