Wednesday 31 July 2013
How much faith should we have in Cable's promise to be tough on blacklisting?
How much faith should we have in Cable's promise to be tough on blacklisting?
31 July 2013
Business Secretary Vince Cable has said the law will be tough on blacklisting if the practice is exposed at Crossrail, but how much faith should we have in his words?
"Blacklisting is an unacceptable and illegal practice and we take any allegations of blacklisting very seriously," the Guardian reported the Minister as saying. "Perpetrators can expect to feel the full force of the law".
If Cable was proposing that the multinational consortium in charge of Crossrail – Bam, Ferrovial and Kier (BFK) – would be charged with a criminal offence and all victims of blacklisting would be reasonably compensated, his words would be something to celebrate. But instead his promises ring hollow against a backdrop of Coalition denial of ongoing blacklisting in the construction industry, and its stubbornness that the law against the practice need not be strengthened. What's more, after Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee Ian Davidson wrote to him calling for an investigation into Crossrail, Cable's response was to delegate the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) – the same organisation that raided The Consulting Association's (TCA) offices in 2009. Although the ICO was able to find huge amounts of evidence that TCA had blacklisted thousands of construction workers, many of whom were unable to work in the industry ever again, the most the 40+ companies involved suffered was a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, Chief Executive Officer of TCA Ian Kerr was fined £5,000 for breaking data protection laws, which he claims was paid by Sir Robert McAlpine.
The law has since been changed by the former Labour government, but as the Institute of Employment Rights (IER) highlighted at the time, the reforms did not go anywhere near far enough.
President of the IER Keith Ewing said: "No doubt driven by a desire not to offend big business, the government’s original proposals failed even to provide a right not to be blacklisted. Workers were expected to be pleased that there would be a right to recover compensation if they could prove that they had suffered loss as a result of having been blacklisted. There would be no automatic compensation for being blacklisted, and no criminal penalties."
"Blacklisting should be a criminal offence. Full stop," he argued.
The reforms also protected only those engaged in 'trade union activities', not 'trade union-related activities', leaving it up to the courts to decide what that means; as well as making virtually no changes to the law on vetting practices, and laying the burden of proof at the door of the worker who believes he has been blacklisted, rather than with the employer. With blacklisting known to be a very secretive practice, thus very difficult to prove, this is more than unhelpful to workers who are struggling to find any work at all.
Indeed, Ewing described the new reforms as "a law carefully constructed never to be used". So even if BFK was to receive the "full force of the law" as Cable promises, it will be barely feel it.
The Institute of Employment Rights believes that a guaranteed minimum amount of compensation should be provided to anyone who is found to have been blacklisted, and crucially that blacklisting must be made illegal. A public inquiry must be held to reveal the scale of blacklisting and to formulate ways to properly punish those who have been engaged in the practice, while providing a real disincentive to employers currently vetting their workers for trade union activity.
- Login to post comments
This website relies on the use of cookies to function correctly. We understand your continued use of the site as agreement to this.
UKIP’s growth - misunderstood by left and right in Britain
UKIP’s growth - misunderstood by left and right in Britain
Dig a little deeper and you will see most popular characterisations of UKIP leave much to be desired - they are in fact attracting plenty of young voters and the public generally rejects comparisons between UKIP and the BNP. Both left and right are struggling to make their mud stick.
UKIP's NIgel Farrage. Flickr/Astral Media. Some rights reserved.
The inclination to dismiss UKIP as a party of old white men and of the past on the basis of limited research and gut feeling is tempting, but it misses elements in the party’s rise: it ignores the ageing and increasingly male demographics of all the other main parties' memberships/support bases and glosses over data showing UKIP's recent rise among the youngest voters. The party's acceptability to many who formerly voted Labour has fuelled the recent second places in Westminster by-elections where Tories have been unelectable for well over a generation. Continued support at current levels would lead to further rapid changes in UKIP, as occurred with the SNP between 1966 and 1976, and Niki Seth-Smith is correct in her conclusion that the left also needs to understand and address all the issues which appear to have led to the rise of UKIP, and the sense of English identity.
Claiming this ground, though, will be impossible if it mirrors the clichéd and weary response that has marked the Tories' disdainful and patronising approach to UKIP supporters and their concerns, insulting them and using tired, meaningless soundbites designed to sound as if action is on the way, masking an intention to do nothing. Insulting a few hundred thousand UKIP voters a decade ago might have been careless but to do the same with a few million today is near suicidal. Failure to really engage with the issues which lie behind UKIP’s rise will lead to further major advances for the party.
It is important to understand that the Yougov research about UKIP supporter profiles that Michael Skey refers to is a tiny snapshot during a period of hype in the run up to publicised elections where Tory voters en masse were openly planning to jump ship: it is challenged to some extent by Yougov's own polling elsewhere in subsequent weeks - the broadbrush summary was done in February when, for example, every Yougov poll showed UKIP behind the LibDems, while almost every Yougov poll done since the 28th February Eastleigh by-election shows the party ahead of the LibDems. UKIP, like the SNP in its first years of success after decades of just being there, is a work in fast progress and its voters/support base are in a process of constant change.
Polling by Yougov itself since the February date (3-4 July 2013, 1-2 July 2013,20-21 June 2013, 12-13 June 2013 (equal to over 65s)) shows that the youngest age group (18-24) is now often the second largest supporter of UKIP after the (indeed inevitable) 65+ group. In the 12-13 June polling, the youngest voters actually equal the oldest voters in support. If this really were a movement completely dominated by the concerns of the over 60s, it seems extraordinary that the very young should be gravitating in quite such numbers to the party or not simply rejecting/ignoring it. The figures from Yougov also bear out the fears of Labour that UKIP is taking votes from across the spectrum.
Niki Seth-Smith says that "party followers...are twice as likely to be over 60 than the general population". But this, of course, is what researchers and experts are saying about Labour, Tory and LibDem memberships and activism/support as well: the paper by Bennie and Russell (2012) makes this quite clear, referring to Scarrow and Gezgor's conclusions on page 3. Conclusions beyond intended voting for the next general election are not helped by the failure to ‘prompt’ for UKIP by most polling organizations (ie they do not mention the party to respondents, but mention the other main three) – it is impossible yet to tell what is the right approach in predicting the result at a general election, but the figures are starkly different when you prompt and they drag in a whole new demographic - younger voters. Any casual look at ukpollingreport.co.uk (summarizing all polling) shows the wild variations – a poll last week taken on the same day showed 10% (unprompted, Yougov) and 22% (prompted, Survation). Variations like this allow selectivity to create and reinforce any impression one wants.
Trying to attract the young to any political party as opposed to pressure groups is difficult and has been analysed in depth, but in comparison with the Tories, for example, who appear to have just given up, casually accepting the constant decline, UKIP appears to be making a determined if chaotic effort. The large numbers involved in the recent row over the support by senior officers in Young Independence for gay marriage and the fallout from it gives indication of truth in the UKIP claims that the numbers of young members are increasing, that they have an impact on the party and that there is internal debate.
Above all, the party has not been rejected at any time by the young as some sort of a pariah (like, say, the BNP would be).
This is important because another strain of the argument about UKIP ('the BNP in blazers' label) will not now work, however much the daft pre-politics antics and statements of some hastily drafted new UKIP candidates are exposed by Conservative Central Office. One of the problems with this old argument is that practically everyone now knows a UKIP member or activist and the fumbled, feeble and tortuous attempts to make UKIP appear like the BNP tend to sound cynical, self serving and simply crying wolf. Countering this is the stale and featureless candidates of the main parties, all of whom have joined young, been hot housed to avoid ever doing or saying anything that might be used against them (therefore doing very little outside of sanctioned party activities) and parachuted in. They mouth the careful and cautious, centrally-planned platitudes of Party HQ, in response to their voters' fears and anger; they never actually seem to say anything. They are the "compliant" half of the "Radical or compliant: young party members in Britain?" title of the Bennie and Russell paper. Were the main parties deemed worthy of respect by voters, the indiscretions of UKIP candidates would probably go against the party big time. But UKIP's sole problem with this appears now to be one of management. And although Nigel Farage and I have not spoken for many years, I would suggest that his handling of this has been effective. He appears to have ensured candidates infringing rules about equality and diversity are dealt with quickly according to the party rules.
An important additional aspect is that UKIP’s determination to ensure that no links could be made to the BNP by mischief makers has paid off. At a time when Labour were actively accepting and courting BNP councillors in Burnley for political gain, UKIP barred any ex-BNP member from membership for all time. To some degree, therefore, unless one suggests that Labour has a pass and can accept what it describes daily as "racists" into its fold willingly in return for a cynical party-scripted recant, it lost the moral high ground in any claim against a party which avowedly will not accept such people. The main point, however, is that the argument will not now work as a way of reducing support for UKIP.
Niki Seth-Smith refers to the strengthening of English identity and, she is quite right, this must not be linked to racism or xenophobia. But one of the dangers with politicians trying to surf the new mood of Englishness is that they are profoundly unsympathetic and out of touch with it, and it appears like Gordon Brown's supposed love for the Arctic Monkeys or the Tory embrace of the welfare state in 1945. It is patently lacking in conviction and insincere. The openDemocracy title of the piece about the Olympics speech sums it up -'Labour should talk about England (but no action please): Ed Miliband on the Union'. To some degree, all the main parties have also spent 50 years branding as racist anyone who talks about ‘England’ or ‘Englishness’, with all the attendant stupidities of banning the flag of St George (“because of racism fears”) and creating the impression that the only people who talk about ‘England’ are football hooligans.
The talking therefore began quite a long time ago and the main parties have explaining to do and some recanting of their own if they are to appear sincere. The perception now will be that the old parties cannot just come along, claim the issue, and think they can neuter it with bland words, all the while banning the English flag as racist. Picture the scene: Nigel Farage has made a barnstorming speech about England and fairness, punctuated by humour and awkward points about flag bans and quotes from tortuous justifications made by clueless councillors, all received by cheers and much waving of flags. Ed Miliband “grabs the microphone from Farage” as suggested by Niki Seth-Smith and says: "we must all work together and maybe we need a dialogue and then ‘move on’". Oh dear. It will not go away and the Farage statement about an English Parliament is closer to the views of the electorate than the cautious talking shop views of the other parties, even if it is controversial in a party called UKIP. It may be that this is an occasion when parties might have to consider adopting urgent stances on the position of England to outflank a party offering what English voters think is right or fair. But the fear, one suspects, is that this appears to legitimise UKIP yet further (“they were right”) and so the paralysis will continue.
Weighing up UKIP generally, it is worth the left in particular remembering something else about UKIP members (and voters). Although they have by and large stayed away at senior level from the populist attacks on bankers etc, the members themselves in polling do not perceive themselves as right wing: as Skey says in reference to trying to place UKIP on a spectrum, there is not the corporate muscle behind UKIP that lies behind the Tea Party in the USA. And part of the restraint on these certain issues is through gritted teeth. Speak to some senior UKIP members about the articles on OpenDemocracy referring to the US-EU trading agreement and the dangers it represents to the NHS, and there is absolutely no difference between their views and that of the contributors here - these cannot be described as right wing. Ask the membership themselves at a UKIP conference to sign a petition about this and you would probably obtain a majority of the attendees' support. In my time on the party NEC, had Labour followed the Peter Shore, Gwyneth Dunwoody and Tony Benn line on the EU, and the Gisela Stuart thinking about the EU Constitution etc, then a third of UKIP's NEC would have considered joining the Labour Party when UKIP was in one of its periods of turmoil. The days of the party being full of “Tories in Mourning” are over.
It is also no secret that many in UKIP, and even more in the eurosceptic movement generally, have the view that it would be easier to deal with a Labour government after 2015, one with a commitment to a referendum, and (frankly) that a referendum held by an unpopular mid-term Labour government could unite the eurosceptics, who could then pull off a vote demanding an EU exit. Farage has also made clear he would find it easier to deal with Miliband than Cameron after the 2015 election, a view echoed even by former Tories in the party and received with little internal opposition.
"Our best option for leaving the EU is for Labour to promise a referendum and for us to vote the party into office", says Richard North, the author of the well respected eureferendum.com site. Well, quite.
Statement responding to release of information about companies who used private investigators
Commenting on the release by the Home Affairs Select Committee of a breakdown of companies and individuals who used private investigators who had broken the law, a Hacked Off spokesman said:
“Hacked Off is opposed to illegal information gathering in all forms, whoever is doing it. Any criminal conduct, by lawyers, insurance companies or anyone else, should be rigorously investigated by the police and, where appropriate, prosecuted using the full force of the law.
“But it should be made clear that this is not evidence of another phone-hacking scandal, as has been suggested by some in the newspaper industry, apparently seeking to divert attention away from widespread media malpractice.
“The list held by members of the Home Affairs Select Committee contains the names of clients of four private investigators who were convicted of obtaining personal information by deception, a practice known as blagging, not phone-hacking.
“We support calls for sentences for these crimes to be increased. Five years ago Parliament agreed that the current maximum sentence – of a fine – should be increased to a two-year jail term, but partly because of newspaper pressure that law has not been brought into effect.
“We have always argued for the maximum possible sunlight to be shone on private eyes and what they do, as long as police investigations and prosecutions are not undermined, and we support the overdue proposals to regulate the private investigations industry.
“Even where the police or prosecution authorities decide against criminal charges, relevant regulatory authorities and employers should take tough action against those who have knowingly or recklessly commissioned, procured or received unlawfully obtained personal data.
“We note that it has been known for years that 14 of our national newspapers commissioned work from a private investigator who was found guilty of illegally accessing data and passing it to journalists. We call on all of those newspapers to declare this in their coverage of this issue.”
Tuesday 30 July 2013
Fighting the far right by ( Young Fabians),
Fighting the far right
The battle appears to be won. In 2010, the BNP were routed in Barking and Dagenham. The number of BNP councillors has plummeted from a high of 56 to just 3. Britain’s most powerful, and most threatening, fascist party seems to be in a state of terminal decline.
Elsewhere, the English Defence League is also in retreat after a period when it seemed destined to replace the BNP as Britain’s foremost far right organisation.
The EDL’s appeal lies in its ‘anti-politics’ approach to campaigning. Members engage in marches and demonstrations, rather than debate and canvassing. However, leader Stephen Lennon is attempting to drive the organisation down the parliamentary route trod by the BNP in an alliance with the British Freedom Party. This has caused the movement to fracture and split as grassroots members rebel against the leadership’s striving to make the EDL a ‘respectable’ party.
However, while the threat of a fascist renaissance in Britain has subsided for now, the underlying attitudes and issues that nourish the far-right remain present in society.
Polling conducted by anti-fascist organisation ‘Hope not Hate’ revealed that 10% of the population can be classified as ‘latently hostile’ to those racially and culturally different from themselves, and 13% as exhibiting an ‘active enmity’ towards the ‘other.’
Insecurity about the future, and concern that British identity is being steadily eroded by a wave of foreign immigrants, are the key
drivers of such attitudes. While very few can summarise what Britishness means (besides drinking tea and queuing), it is something that is felt to be under attack by multiculturalism and the political doctrine of tolerance.
Cosmopolitan liberals may shrug their shoulders at this concern, rightly pointing out that ours is a nation of immigrants and that the freedoms Britons hold dear are protected by law and not about to wiped out by a radical Islamic agenda or a tidal wave of Polish plumbers. However, the fear that British society is evolving out of all recognition is deep-rooted in the sort of constituencies the BNP prey upon. One Londoner said:
“One of the problems of academics is that they don’t understand how local people feel…I get very wobbly when I get on a bus and there are fifteen people with burkhas on….[the growth of immigrant communities] does wind people up.”
Progressives would be foolish to ignore local people’s concerns and brand all those who fear immigrants as ignorant or racist.
Fortunately, Labour is in a unique position to help change attitudes and strengthen the campaign against fascism. Aimy Saunders, a campaigner with ‘Hope not Hate,’ says:
“The BNP has been more successful in areas where the Labour Party has taken people for granted. 49% of BNP voters used to vote Labour but felt disillusioned with the Labour party and what they stood for at that time.”
The rest are typically first-time voters or non-voters, who cast their ballot for the BNP out of despair that mainstream parties simply don’t understand their concerns.
Labour activists need to take to the streets- as they did in Barking and Dagenham- to win that 49% back for the party and prevent non-voters from supporting fascists at election time.
Local parties should also forge alliances with campaigning groups like ‘Hope not Hate’ to promote ‘community resilience.’
“[At ‘Hope not Hate’] we’re building community links so that when times are hard and the BNP comes
knocking local residents will be able to respond and not be as influenced as much by their ideas,” says Aimy.
This means linking local schools, clubs, and religious collectives together in community-wide projects designed to strengthen a sense of fellowship. In Luton, Dagenham, and Croydon where the BNP have made inroads in the past, ‘Hope not Hate’ has founded community newspapers and sponsored local meetings and events to inspire a spirit of neighbourliness.
Local Constituency Labour Parties and Trade Union branches are well positioned to support such work in areas susceptible to the economic and social pressures that lure people to the far right.
Ignoring the threat of fascism and claiming that far right parties have been routed once and for all is arrogant at best and dangerous at worst. Parties like the BNP may rise, fall, then disappear, but the values they stand for endure.
There is, therefore, a strong moral case for Labour to jointhe struggle against fascism. If we claim to be the party of inclusiveness, we cannot turn a blind eye when attitudes toxic to the ideal of a free and equal society are allowed to find political expression.
Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog
Sunday 28 July 2013
Police finance chief quits £121,000 job over hotel stay with blonde colleague Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083723/Police-finance-chief-quits-121-000-job-hotel-stay-blonde-colleague.
Police finance chief quits £121,000 job over hotel stay with blonde colleague
- Derek Smith faced probe over £200 bill, but resigned
- Had advised Government on charging for police services
Fall from grace: Derek Smith has been forced to resign from West midlands Police after claiming expenses for a hotel stay with a female colleague
A married police finance chief has quit his £121,000-a-year job over an expenses claim for an unauthorised hotel stay with a blonde female colleague.
Derek Smith, who advised the Government on charging for police services, faced an investigation into the £200 bill.
But the West Midlands Police civilian director of finance and resources resigned before the inquiry – conducted by another force – was completed.
Mr Smith was also a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers and helped lead West Midlands Police’s £750 million cost-cutting drive, involving hundreds of job losses.
An internal investigation into alleged misconduct by the woman, a civilian police worker who is understood to be married, has also been launched. She is not expected to lose her job.
It is not the first time Mr Smith has been at the centre of controversy. In June last year it was reported that a £40,000 BMW 5 Series car – normally used by undercover officers – was stolen from outside his home, raising questions about why desk-based staff had access to emergency vehicles.
It was kitted out with sirens, police radio and special covert blue lights and was said to be for ‘personal use’. It was unclear how long Mr Smith had been using the car.
He spent 20 years with the West Midlands force and had a range of responsibilities, including managing the human resources department, the police estate – its stations and patrol bases – and its fleet of vehicles.
In his senior management role, which included attending conferences, Mr Smith was authorised to charge legitimate expenses – including hotel stays.
But his fall from grace began after he booked into a Manchester hotel, where he was joined by a female colleague, and charged the stay to the force. The stay was not linked to any police-related event.
Long career: Mr Smith had spent 20 years with West Midlands Police (above) where his latest post was that of civilian director of finance and resources
The £200 claim is understood to include the accommodation bill, drinks, food and travel expenses.
A West Midlands Police spokesman said its professional standards unit was ‘made aware of an allegation of misconduct against two members of police staff’ in November last year.
He added: ‘The allegation concerns the use of police funds in connection with expenses, travel and accommodation. West Midlands Police expects every employee to act with integrity and honesty.
‘In line with our values, any allegation of misconduct or inappropriate behaviour will be investigated by our Professional Standards Department.
‘One individual has left the force. The second individual concerned continues to be investigated under the police staff disciplinary arrangements.’
The spokesman defended the decision to accept Mr Smith’s resignation rather than pursuing costly misconduct proceedings.
‘Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, it was felt by the individual concerned, the force and the Police Authority that this person’s position would be untenable,’ he said.
Mr Smith had offered to pay back the money ‘and this will be accepted’.
It is understood there is no suggestion of financial impropriety involving the woman and the allegations are not serious enough to risk her losing her job.
Mr Smith could not be reached for comment last night.
When contacted by The Mail on Sunday, his female colleague said: ‘I’m sorry, I can’t comment on that.’
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Police fail to follow-up nearly two-thirds of reported shoplifting in Birmingham
Police fail to follow-up nearly two-thirds of reported shoplifting in Birmingham
More than 60 per cent of thefts from stores were not recorded properly in the city centre
Crime logs have revealed police were failing to record or investigate more than 60 per cent of shoplifting offences in Birmingham city centre.
And a damning Mail investigation has discovered the West Midlands force may have breached Home Office rules by under-recording huge numbers of store thefts .
Police documents show a bombshell ‘risk-crime audit’ last August discovered officers were repeatedly failing to investigate shoplifting offences in a breach of national crime-recording policy.
Audited logs showed police wrongly ignored some crimes because they said they were being dealt with in-store, often with repeat offenders receiving multiple banning orders from the same shops.
Other theft cases wrongly went unrecorded with officers referring to ‘local policy’ or ‘lack of evidence’.
Incredibly, some cases were being ignored because cops wrongly believed shoplifting – a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 – was a civil offence.
The result is the truth about the extent to which shoplifting gangs and individuals are blighting Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Coventry city centres may have been hidden for years.
Yet a recent blog by Deputy Chief Constable Dave Thompson told how well the West Midlands force was doing in fighting crime.
"He stated: ‘‘As a final note this week, did you know that one tenth of all our crime is now shoplifting? A very interesting point that reinforces just how much other crime has fallen.’’
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal the force became aware that shoplifting cases were being under-recorded following the August audit.
The force had an overall ‘82 per cent compliant’ rating in terms of response and recording procedures for shoplifting, giving it a ‘fair’ rating, but still below the nationally targeted 90 per cent figure.
Yet that score belied a woeful picture in key areas including the Birmingham West and Central (BW&C) district which covers the city centre, one of the country’s busiest retail areas.
Of a sample 40 logs of reported shoplifting incidents in that district, a staggering 25 had not been recorded or investigated properly, according to the August audit.
That means the force’s performance in that area alone was just 37 per compliant, with officers failing to record or investigate properly 63 per cent of reported cases. The force was 78 per cent compliant in Coventry and 80 per cent in Wolverhampton.
The Mail revealed in January that shoplifting cases in Birmingham city centre had TREBLED in 12 months after police admitted under-recording the problem.
Chief Supt Clive Burgess said at that time: “Last year West Midlands Police – through a routine audit – identified the under-recording of shoplifting in our city centres spanning a number of years.”
The August risk-crime audit, an internal document which was not made public, stated the nature of the 25 log fails were ‘identical in almost every case’.
It added: ‘‘A typical example would be suspect leaves store and is apprehended by staff. Stolen property would be found and the police called.
"The result would be one of the following: *Police would not attend and the matter would be dealt with ‘in house. *Police would attend and no action would be taken other than the store issuing a banning order.”
The report was forwarded to Superintendent Keith Fraser, the force’s lead on shop and stall thefts, for a review to be conducted into “poor performance to identify and eradicate any incorrect practices”.
As part of our investigation, the force released an email dated December 20, 2012, in which Chief Inspector Ryan Howat, from the Organisational Service Development (OSD) department, wrote to Mark Wentzell, policy manager at Police Commissioner Bob Jones’ Office for Policing and Crime.
Chief Insp Howat denies that an increase in ‘the average levels of recorded offences from October (2012) onwards’ for Birmingham city centre was down to an increase in offending.
He said: “This was due to a change in crime recording practices following an audit by OSD and is not due to an increase in offending.’’
He said officers were now working closely with retail businesses to ‘address the high levels of shoplifting and encouraged business to take a more robust approach in tackling the problem’.
Chief Insp Howat said of previous under-recording problems: “Unfortunately, it became apparent that retail businesses were taking positive action but not reporting these matters formally to the police, instead notifying local Neighbourhood Policing Teams for information only but in reality confirming offences had been committed.
Unfortunately this is contrary to Home Office Counting Rules so OSD advised BW&C of the appropriate recording practices to ensure we are recording offences properly and it will stand scrutiny from any external review.”
All 25 non-compliant logs were to be actioned and corrected by the end of September. A follow-up audit in
January found the force’s response to dealing with the offences had improved to 88 per cent compliant – again in the ‘fair’ rating. Yet seven out of the new 40 reviewed shoplifting logs for Birmingham city centre still were non-compliant.
Sample auditor remarks about logs
BIRMINGHAM
1. Not recorded/crimed because it is being dealt with in store. This is incorrect.
2. Insufficient information. Theft of trainers reported and this is only negated by the words ‘no theft’. A full explanation is required.
3. Report of shoplifting, no result on log.
4. The previous theft (on the 20th of July) has not been crimed. There is a physical assault here which has not been addressed.
5. Theft reported. For the purposes of recording it is of no consequence if the suspect has mental health issues.
6. Theft reported and we have not recorded it. Suspect had been banned 4 times previous (sic).
7. A theft has been reported, if this is to be negated a full explanation is needed. To simply say ‘no evidence to arrest’ is not enough when victim has confirmed a theft.
8. This appears not to be crimed on the basis that the property has been returned. This is incorrect.
WOLVERHAMPTON
1. Shoplifting reported and not crime because ‘as per local policy’.
COVENTRY
1. 3rd party report of shoplifting but we have attended and no doubt spoke to IP. It is incorrect for this not to be recorded and be dealt with in house
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)