WYP Enter The Open And Transparent Arena #DontDitchTheDogs

On 8th March I submitted an #FOI request to West Yorkshire Police in relation to their declared intent to reduce the number of Police Dogs from 27 to 20.

Could you please
a) Confirm the intention to reduce Police Dog numbers from 27 to 20
b) Provide me with copies of all Risk and/or Impact Assessments
that were carried out in the process of taking this decision.

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act they have 20 WORKING DAYS to respond to my request.

Today is Day 20 by my calculations.

Today I received my reply.

“I am afraid that I am unable to provide you with this information at this
point in time and this email serves as a refusal notice.  Section 17 of
the Freedom of Information Act states that:
(1)    A public authority which, in relation to an request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that information is
exempt information must, within the time for complying within Section 1(1)
give the applicant a notice which:
(a)     States the fact,
(b)   Specifies the exemption in question, and
(c)    States why the exemption applies.
The reason why I am unable to provide this information is because an
exemption applies under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act.
This states that information is exempt information if it is held by the
public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any
other person, at some future date (whether determined or not).”

To justify this refusal they then went on to say this;

“The public interest in transparency and openness with regard to decisions
which affect police resources.  The programme of change is designed to not
only realise savings but to transform the structure of West Yorkshire
Police – its operations, systems and processes to improve performance.
Cost savings are essential and West Yorkshire Police has to save £112.6m
over four years of the spending review.  This equates to 22% of the Force
overall budget.   There is a significant public interest in being able to
hold the Police and Crime Commissioner (and the Chief Constable) to
account for decisions which are taken to ensure that cost savings are met
whilst improving performance.
Disclosing this information would increase the understanding of the
difficult decisions which are being considered to meet the funding gap and
the actions which are being taken to maintain an effective police service
in West Yorkshire.  Disclosure will also provide reassurance that decision
making is proper and considered.
The programme of change review is still ongoing and it is intended to
publish this information on conclusion of the programme of change.
Disclosure of certain parts of the review, before conclusion of the whole
programme or before proper public consultation has been undertaken, could
have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the remainder of the review
if it then leads to pressure or lobbying for particular decisions to be
reached.
Advanced disclosure of part of the programme of change, preventing people
from having the full picture on which to base their judgements, could
damage public confidence which may lead people to feel less safe and have
a greater fear of crime.  Early disclosure, before staff consultation,
could also affect staff morale and retention thus having a detrimental
impact on the Force’s ability to meet the challenges ahead.”

In short, they’re not telling me because they intend to publish this information at some unspecified date in the future, it IS in the Public Interest to release the information but NOT YET, if they release the information too soon it could damage Public Confidence (I’ve heard that somewhere else this week too) and make you feel less safe.

Well there you are then, no problem at all having fewer Police Dogs, it seems you should feel safer not knowing the full facts, or is that just me being cynical?  Oh, and while I’m on the subject of being cynical, could West Yorkshire Police please tell me why it takes the maximum 20 Working Days just to Refuse the Request?

Last Updated on

First It’s Mrs Angry Now Me….Crazy Policy? #DontDitchTheDogs

I was relaxing in Angry Towers this afternoon watching a Police documentary, Life On Mars I think it was called, when a Tweet from Dyfed-Powys PCC caught my eye.

Volunteering opportunities.

Lay Custody Visitor – really didn’t fancy that, not my cup of tea at all.

Residents’ Panel – not a resident, I live the right side of Offa’s Dyke, so probably not eligible for that.

So that left the third and final opportunity – Animal Welfare Lay Visitor.  “Each dog handler receives a visit from the Independent Animal Welfare Lay Visitor at least once a year“. I could do that,  Gizz A Job. 30 years unblemished service in the Met (if you don’t count the time I had Defendants after my name, but that worked out OK in the end.  Served in a few highly specialised posts, although there was that one time when I was paper-sifted out of a position at Buckingham Palace when I was the only applicant. I wasn’t overly impressed at the time, but I look upon it as a reference now.  Three years working for the Police Authority as a Forensic Bean Counter. I’ve owned hamsters, gerbils, terrapins, tropical fish and even the occasional dog. I’d be perfect for the role.

WRONG

I set about downloading the associated paperwork and found an all-crippling paragraph under the title of ELIGIBILITY

The Scheme Administrator will not appoint magistrates, serving or former police officers, special constables  or police support staff, as Animal Welfare Visitors

Why-ever not?  “Each application will be treated on its merits, but the over-riding factor will be to prevent possible conflicts of interest for individuals and to maintain the independence and integrity of the Scheme as a whole

Well I can’t say that I’m over-impressed with that.  Does it say the same for Lay Custody Visitor?  No it does not, well not exactly, it says “Is not a serving member of a police force or Office for the Police and Crime Commissioner, and have no involvement in the criminal justice system

So there you have it, PCC’s revenge.  Apparently I’m a fit and proper person to check up on the well-being of prisoners but not Police Dogs. Does this mean that Police Dogs are more highly-regarded than prisoners? I sincerely hope not, although I do regard Police Dogs very highly. #DontDitchTheDogs. What exactly does that say about me? I’m a tad peeved now.

So I’ll just have to get back to Life on Mars and learn just how Policing should be done.

Last Updated on