Archive for March, 2012


Hosepipe ban will start on April 5th

20 Million people suffer restrictions in the UK

Seven water companies in southern and eastern England today announced they will be introducing hosepipe bans on domestic customers from Thursday April 5th.

The ban will be effective for all customers who get their water from  across the region. The step is being taken to combat the effects of an increasingly severe drought, following the driest 18 month period in more than a century.

Anglian Water, Thames Water, Southern Water, Veolia Central Water, South East Water, Veolia South East and Sutton and East Surrey Water all said the introduction of the temporary hosepipe ban would begin on April 5, before the Easter Bank Holiday weekend.

Peter Simpson, Managing Director of Anglian Water, said: “This is the first time Anglian Water has imposed a hosepipe ban in more than 20 years, but we believe this is the most sensible and responsible action to take to help safeguard customer supplies for this year, next year and beyond.

“Our region has had its driest 18 months for a century, including two dry winters which have robbed us of the rainfall we need to refill rivers, reservoirs and aquifers.

“In addition to the hosepipe ban, we are asking our 4.2 million customers to help us save water at home, at work and in the garden.

“We are doing our bit too; millions of pounds are being spent to secure water supplies in the region and we are working with neighbouring water companies to help keep them secure across the wider South East and East.

Under the terms of the ban, there will be a small number of exemptions to protect jobs and livelihoods and the infirm. Customers can still water their gardens if they use a watering can not a hose, and can still clean their cars, provided they use a bucket.

Mr Simpson said: “Along with lots of rain, what we need most of all is common sense.

“This is one of those times when everyone needs to pull together and help save water, as well as look out for relations, neighbours and friends who might struggle in some way – perhaps lifting a heavy watering can or bucket for example.

“We are not telling people to stop doing what they have to, but to adapt their behaviour to reflect the severity of the situation. The message is – do what you can.

People have until April 5 to contact Anglian Water to suggest what exemptions if any, are appropriate.

At present, the ban will only apply to domestic use of hosepipes for things like gardening, washing cars and windows and filling paddling pools. Businesses and other commercial operations are not affected.

However, Anglian Water is urging its non-domestic customers to use water sparingly.

Advertisements

The incident was believed to be domestic-related

 update

Negotiators were tonight trying to save an elderly woman who was inside a property with a knife-wielding man. Officers were called to Perry Hill Road in Sandwell, West Midlands, this morning after concerns for the woman’s welfare were raised.

The incident was believed to be domestic-related.

Chief Superintendent Phil Kay, of West Midlands Police, who is managing the incident, said: “Officers received an emergency call this morning regarding concerns for the welfare of a woman aged in her 80s, who lives at an address in Oldbury.

“Police made further inquiries which confirmed that a man aged in his 40s was also inside the property in Perry Hill Road and was armed with a knife. At this stage the incident is believed to be domestic-related.

“Specialist officers including force negotiators remain at the scene this evening as they continue to try and bring the situation to a peaceful and safe resolution.”

UPDATE

West Midlands Police can confirm that the police incident in Perry Hill Road, Oldbury has ended. The man came out of the property just after 11am.

A 40 year old man has been arrested on suspicion of false imprisonment and has been taken to a police station in the West Midlands.

A 79 year old woman is currently being assessed by medical professionals at the scene but is not believed to be seriously injured.

ACC Sharon Rowe:

” The incident at Perry Hill Road has now reached a peaceful resolution and a 40 year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of false imprisonment.

A 79 year-old woman will be taken to hospital as a precaution, however she is not believed to have suffered significant injury.”

” We are aware that the incident has been ongoing for more than twenty four hours. However, it was a complex situation and various specialist officers as well as medical professionals have all worked tirelessly at the scene.

“Our primary concern has always been to bring this matter to a safe conclusion and to protect the lives of those involved.

“Thankfully the matter has been brought to a safe conclusion as the man left of his own accord. We cannot comment further on the motivation for this situation, however we can confirm that the matter is domestic related and those involved are mother and son.

“The incident will now move into the investigation phase and forensic investigations are moving into the property to examine the scene. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the local community for their help and patience in this matter.”

Attorney General should look at this case

I found this article from my local newspaper the Redditch Advertiser.

I think this is an unduly lenient sentence and sends out the wrong message and should be looked at by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General has the power to ask the Court of Appeal to review some sentences which he thinks are unduly lenient.

The following article can be found on the Redditch Advertiser website on March 10th 2012.  http://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/news/9580781.Sexually_repressed_scientist_who_downloaded_child_porn_given_a_suspended_prison_sentence/

A SEXUALLY repressed scientist who downloaded more than 15,000 indecent images of children has been given a suspended prison sentence.

Christopher Richardson, 64, of Corinthian Court in Alcester, pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to 12 charges of making indecent images of children.

He was sentenced to 26 weeks in prison suspended for two years, with two years supervision, and was ordered to take part in a sex offender programme and to pay £1,200 costs.

Prosecutor Neil Bannister said that during a police investigation in 2010 officers found Richardson had been downloading indecent images of children.

He was arrested on suspicion of possessing such images, and his laptop computer and a hard drive were seized.

Officers from the force’s high tech unit found a staggering 15,700 indecent images of children which had been downloaded over a four-year period.

Judge Marten Coates said an appropriate custodial sentence would result in Richardson’s release “very quickly” but there was “a strong case for re-educating him”.

Ben Close, defending, said: “This offending ended in July 2010, and there have been no further offences, but I do not seek to persuade Your Honour there is not a problem which can be addressed.”

“He had an unusual upbringing, to use the word strict is an understatement, and he was led to believe anything to do with sex would result in eternal damnation,” he said.

“It has led him to be sexually repressed.”

Mr Close said that after a seven-year marriage ended, Richardson had formed a “destructive relationship” with another woman who was an alcoholic.

She died two or three years ago, which was the trigger which led to him looking at the images on the internet.

Mr Close added that Richardson is the carer for his 88-year-old mother who would suffer most if he was jailed.

The judge also ordered Richardson to register as a sex offender for seven years, imposed a condition that he does not take photos of any child under 16 or access any website which enables the downloading of images of children irrespective of their state of undress.

Unduly Lenient Sentences

The Attorney General has the power to ask the Court of Appeal to review some sentences which he thinks are “unduly lenient” – so light that a judge could not reasonably have handed it down.  If the Court of Appeal agrees with the Attorney General it can increase the sentence.

This power has been limited by Parliament in two important ways:
1. Only certain cases are eligible

The sentence must be for one of these offences:

  • more serious crimes which can be dealt with only in the Crown Court, such as murder, rape  and robbery
  • some sex crimes, especially those involving children, but also indecent assault and some other sex crimes
  • child cruelty
  • threats to kill
  • some serious frauds
  • some drugs crimes
  • some racially or religiously aggravated crimes
  • attempting or inciting any of these.

2. There is a strict 28 day time limit, from the day the sentence was passed.

If you are concerned that a sentence may be unduly lenient, it’s important that you tell the Attorney General’s office quickly, so he and his advisers have time to consider it before the deadline. (The 28 day limit is calendar days not working days, so weekends and holidays do count!).

All cases are considered personally by the Attorney General or his deputy, the Solicitor General.

They personally look into all the facts and consider the concerns of the victim and family. They apply the law and guidelines which apply to the sentencing decision. Normally they also have advice from:

  • lawyers who appeared for the prosecution in the trial
  • a highly experienced independent barrister, who hasn’t been involved so far
  • expert lawyers in his office.

“Unduly lenient” means more than just lenient

The courts have said that an unduly lenient sentence “falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate”.

In other words, the sentence must not just be lenient, but must be unduly lenient – not just low, but unreasonably low.

The Court of Appeal will not change the sentence unless it is significantly below what the judge should have passed. The Attorney General has to bear this in mind when deciding whether or not to refer a case to the Court.

The Attorney is also able to refer cases where it seems that the judge made a legal mistake about his or her powers of sentencing.

You may find it helpful to talk to your local Crown Prosecution Service about the sentence in the case you are concerned about.

About sentencing

Sentencing is complicated and judges must think about many things when making their decisions.  For example they consider the impact on the victim and their loved ones, how vulnerable the victim was, whether the offender should have been looking after the victim, whether the crime was provoked, whether it was planned carefully or happened on the spur of the moment, whether the offender showed remorse, the age of the offender, and much more.

Indeterminate sentences

The effect of certain sentences is sometimes misunderstood.

Indeterminate sentences mean that an offender has no automatic right to be released, ever. These sentences were created to ensure that dangerous offenders are not released before the Parole Board has agreed that it is safe to release them.

There are two types of indeterminate sentence:  a life sentence and a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP – or detention for public protection (DPP) if the offender is under 21)

Life sentences must be given to offenders guilty of murder. Life sentences may also be passed in other serious offences such as manslaughter, rape and armed robbery.

In a very few cases of extreme gravity, a judge may pass a ‘whole life term’ as part of a life sentence, which means that the offender can never be released.

Otherwise, when a judge sentences someone to life imprisonment, he or she must also decide on a minimum term or ‘tariff’. The offender must spend that time in prison before he or she can apply to the Parole Board to be released. When this happens, the Parole Board, which is an independent body, will consider if it is safe to release the offender. In reaching this decision they will look at statements from the victims or their families.

If the Parole Board decides that an offender is no longer a risk, he or she will be released “on licence”.  This means they will be monitored by the Probation Service and will have to obey certain conditions. If the offender does not meet these requirements he or she can be recalled to prison.  If the Parole Board decides that the offender is still a risk they will refuse to release him or her.  Some offenders with these sentences may never be released.

A sentence of IPP (or DPP) is similar to a life sentence in its effect. The judge has to fix a minimum term and the offender must serve that term before he or she is able to apply to the Parole Board to be released.

For more information about sentences visit the DirectGov website or the Judiciary website.

Anyone can ask the Attorney General to look at a case

Victims, their families, and members of the public can contact the Attorney General’s Office if they think a sentence is much too light.

It’s easy to ask the Attorney General to look at a case – you don’t need a lawyer. To ask for a sentence to be looked at, you’ll need some basic information. This includes:

  • the name of the person who was sentenced;
  • the name of the Crown Court where the sentence was passed;
  • the crimes committed;
  • the date of sentence.

. And also tell us which case you are concerned about and why you think it should be changed. You should contact the Correspondence Unit. The Attorney General’s Office will email you when a decision is made whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

Don’t worry if you don’t have all the information, but the more you can give us, the more likely it is that we will find the right case.

If you can, also phone the Attorney General’s Office on 020 7271 2492. You may need to leave a message

GKN £800million deal

Engineering giant GKN is reported to be on the brink of an £800 million deal to buy Volvo’s aircraft business.

The swoop by GKN, which employs 40,000 people and has operations across the UK, would represent one of the biggest acquisitions by a British manufacturing firm since the banking crisis.

The Sunday Times said Redditch-based GKN was now the frontrunner for the Volvo arm after Germany’s leading engine maker, MTU Aero Engines, dropped out of the auction process started by Volvo in November.

The addition would represent a major boost to GKN’s aerospace division, which last year recorded sales of £1.5 billion and is a supplier of aircraft components to both Airbus and Boeing. Its biggest division is automotive, which makes parts for many of the world’s big carmakers.

The Volvo business up for grabs makes the RM12 engine for Saab’s Gripen fighter jets, used by the Swedish military, as well as supplying engine components to the three main engine manufacturers, including Rolls-Royce.

The deal could signal the start of a spending spree in the industrial sector, with major players such as the American giants GE, Dover and Honeywell sitting on huge war chests built up during the economic slowdown.

It was also reported that GKN’s wheels business, which makes components for construction vehicles and other heavy plant, is up for sale in a move that could generate about £130 million.

Last month GKN reported a 15% increase in full-year pre-tax profits to £417 million, on sales up 13% to £6.1 billion.

The aerospace arm’s UK operations are based in locations including Yeovil, Luton, Derby, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight.

Man Charged With Drain Cover thefts Worth £155,000

The district judge told him he’d be committed to Worcester Crown Court on May 16.

A man has been arrested and charged by West Mercia Police with stealing 628 drain covers worth a total of £155,325 from roads in North Worcestershire, Warwickshire and the West Midlands.

The man, who is aged 26 and from Studley in Warwickshire, was charged by police at Redditch after answering bail yesterday (Thursday, 8 March).

He faces ten charges of stealing drain covers from locations including Redditch, Bromsgrove, Nuneaton, Shirley, and Studley, on dates between 30 November, 2011 and 12 January this year (2012).

Additionally he is charged with converting criminal property, namely drain covers, by selling them for a cash payment of £428 contrary to the Proceeds Of Crime Act. That offence is alleged to have taken place at Kingswinford on 12 January.

The man has been released on police bail to appear at Redditch Magistrates Court on Tuesday, 20 March.

UPDATE

Leith’s appearance today ( Tuesday 20th March) in Court number One at Redditch Magistrates was brief, and few details of the alleged offences were given.

The district judge told him he’d be committed to Worcester Crown Court on May 16.

Article By Simon Preston

Local Authorities Member’s Allowances Worcestershire County Council

What happened to Councillors doing a service to the community?

councillors used to do it to give something back to the community they lived  in.
But now it seems they are out for what they can get a long with the Chief Executive.
The Leader Adrian Hardman Pictured below
Took £33,811.99 in allowances fromWorcestershire County Council, his travel and subsistence alone were £2,907.88.
He also gets £4,2oo from Wychavon District Council 
£2,708.60 Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority
         Local Government Association – General Assembly (Member)
         West Mercia Supplies (Member)
Declaration of Financial Interests can be found here

Is he worth it? 

 
511,086.40 303,745.12 1,132.74 33,116.07 13,354.23 862,434.56 Was the Total paid in pay and perks in 2010-2011
 
 
Below is a list of Councillors allowances for 2010/ 2011
 
Name Basic Allowance Special ResponsibilityAllowance Dependant Carers Allowance Travel/ Subsistence Councillor ICT Scheme Total
Mrs F M Oborski 9,019.80 732.36 9,752.16
Mr J W Parish 9,019.80 728.60 9,748.40
Mr S R Peters 9,019.80 795.82 9,815.62
Dr K A Pollock 9,019.80 9,734.88 917.61 19,672.29
Mrs J A Potter 9,019.80 1000.24 983.00 11,003.04
Mr D W Prodger 9,019.80 16,499.76 25,519.56
Mr A C Roberts 9,019.80 13.43 9,033.23
Mr E J Sheldon*4 4,309.46 4,309.46
Mr C T Smith 9,019.80 103.50 9,123.30
Mr J H Smith 9,019.80 16,499.76 1,124.79 26,644.35
Mr T A Spencer 9,019.80 608.33 529.98 10,158.11
Mr C B Taylor 9,019.80 128.19 9,147.99
Mr D F O Thain 9,019.80 690.54 9,710.34
Mr J W R Thomas 9,019.80 450.53 604.47 10,074.80
Mrs E B Tucker 9,019.80 9,734.88 18,754.68
Mr R M Udall 9,019.80 69.99 9,089.79
Mr T A L Wells 9,019.80 16,499.76 225.01 25,744.57
Mr G C Yarranton 9,019.80 642.04 9,661.84
511,086.40 303,745.12 1,132.74 33,116.07 13,354.23 862,434.56
 
 
Name of Councillor Basic Allowance£ Special ResponsibilityAllowance£ Dependant Carers Allowance£ Travel/ Subsistence£ Councillor ICT Scheme£ Total£
Mr R C Adams 9,019.80 9,734.88 18,754.68
Mr M Ahmed 9,019.80 9,019.80
Mr A T Amos 9,019.80 266.41 9,286.21
Mrs S Askin 9,019.80 9,734.88 18,754.68
Mr R W Banks 9,019.80 9,734.88 1182.64 1000.00 20,937.32
Mr T J Bean 9,019.80 360.66 9,380.46
Mr A N Blagg 9,019.80 16,499.76 117.90 429.00 26,066.46
Mrs S L Blagg 9,019.80 803.04 9,822.84
Mr M H Broomfield 9,019.80 778.97 9,798.77
Mr S Brown 9,019.80 203.04 9,222.84
Mrs J Brunner 9,019.80 9,734.88 322.59 19,077.27
Mr R A A Bullock 9,019.80 628.26 9,648.06
Mrs M C Bunker 9,019.80 563.00 799.63 10,382.43
Mr J M Cairns 9,019.80 1,645.24 10,665.04
Mr J P Campion 9,019.80 9,734.88 199.00 18,953.68
Mr B F Clayton 9,019.80 223.58 9,243.38
Mr S J M Clee 9,019.80 16,499.76 1,582.53 671.24 27,773.33
Mrs P E Davey 9,019.80 339.33 9,359.13
Mr A E Davies 9,019.80 9,734.88 715.75 19,470.43
Mr N J Desmond 9,019.80 142.20 9,162.00
Mr A Ditta 9,019.80 9,019.80
Mrs M L Drinkwater 9,019.80 12,960.46 394.08 839.95 23,214.29
Mrs L R Duffy 9,019.80 82.95 9,102.75
Mrs E A Eyre 9,019.80 16,499.76 2,832.64 880.01 29,232.21
Mr B P Gandy 9,019.80 9,734.88 809.25 19,563.93
Mr S E Geraghty 9,019.80 16,499.76 25,519.56
Mr W P Gretton 9,019.80 16,499.76 1,132.74 1,762.05 483.81 28,898.16
Mrs J M Griffiths*1 2,545.91 148.06 117.44 2,811.41
Mr A I Hardman 9,019.80 21,884.31 2,907.88 33,811.99
Mr M Hart 9,019.80 16,499.76 1,582.42 983.59 28,085.57
Mrs A T Hingley 9,019.80 568.80 9,588.60
Mrs L C Hodgson 9,019.80 241.94 9,261.74
Mr C G Holt 9,019.80 9,734.88 714.00 19,468.68
Mrs G F L Hopkins 9,019.80 354.05 9,373.85
Dr G H Lord*2 5,085.32 18,558.37 1,932.38 25,576.07
Mr P M McDonald 9,019.80 353.92 90.13 9,463.85
Mr A P Miller*3 3,056.71 119.30 1,000.00 4,176.01
Mrs E K Moffett 9,019.80 830.69 958.99 10,809.48
Mr W E Moore 9,019.80 2,850.10 1,804.77 13,674.67
Mrs P J M Morgan 9,019.80 1,000.00 10,019.80
Mrs B A Nielsen 9,019.80 1,000.00 10,019.80

Telling lies, the DWP and Councils use Voice risk analysis to detect if your claim for benefit is fraudulent

By Simon Preston

Local councils and the DWP have been using it for sometime the VRA Pilots began in each area at the end of 2008 and were scheduled to run for 12 months (although some areas had decided to continue using VRA after the pilot had ended). Research was conducted in Aberdeen and Barking and Dagenham at the end of the pilot phase. At that stage it was not possible to conduct research in any other areas as confirmation of which areas would be able to provide claimant samples had not been obtained. Therefore, a two stage fieldwork process was necessary with an additional stage of fieldwork being carried out throughout the first half of 2010 as samples became available.

Voice risk analysis (VRA) is a real time system that combines the measurement of physiological levels of voice stress with behavioural analysis and conversation management techniques to enable the detection of truthful statements. It is a proven technique used in the private sector and is widely used in the insurance business.

In order to claim Housing and / or Council Tax Benefit, the customer is required to provide numerous documents in support of the income, capital and circumstances of them and their household.  Such documents include bank statements, pay slips, benefit letters and tenancy agreements and request for these can lead to a delay in processing Benefit claims.

The Department for Works and Pensions decided to investigate the VRA software and see whether the same techniques can be used successfully in Housing Benefit administration and in welfare benefits in general and therefore reduce the documentation needed in support of a claim.  A number of Local Authorities across the country were invited to take part in the project with the specific objectives being:

  • To improve customer service by providing processes that are quicker and less intrusive to the vast majority of claimants
  • To provide a service that is more efficient and therefore less costly
  • To improve fraud and error prevention and detection

The DWP are due to publish their findings and the results of the project in due course.  Please check here at a later date or visit their website at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/ for more information.

In the late summer of 2008, Bromsgrove and Redditch councils were accepted as part of the 2nd phase of a national project with the Department for Work and Pensions to test the use of Voice Risk Analysis software in Housing and Council Tax Benefit administration.  We went “live” with the use of VRA on the 27th January 2009.

Initially the VRA process only applied to new Benefit claims but has now been extended to include claims due for review, also known as interventions.  In the past, when making a new claim for Benefit or when their claim is due for renew, customers had to provide a number of documents in support of their claim.

The new process includes the making of an appointment at a time that is convenient to the call handler and the customer.  During the call, the customer is asked a number of questions regarding their income, capital, circumstances and rental liability, all of which are risk assessed using the software and behavioural techniques.

At the end of the call the risk assessment is completed and the case is marked as low risk or high risk.

Low Risk Cases

If a new claim is classed as low risk the claim for Housing / Council Tax Benefit can be processed immediately following the call.  This means that any Council Tax Benefit could be credited to the Council Tax account and a revised bill issued the same day and any Housing Benefit could be paid into your nominated bank account within 7 days*.

If an Intervention (review) has been classed as low risk, the claim will be reviewed and re-assessed to take into account any changes that may have been reported.  Letters may then be issued the following day to advise you of the change to your entitlement, if applicable.

We are required to do a sample selection of low risk cases so some customers may be subject to a follow up visit.  During this visit the visiting officer will ask to see certain documentation to allow us to check against the information provided during the telephone call.  In the event of anything changing or any differences being identified, your claim for Benefit will be re-assessed.  If a visit is needed, you will be notified in writing of the date and time of the visit.

Please be aware that in some circumstances, although the claim may be classed as low risk, additional information may still be needed.  You will normally be advised of this at the end of your call.

* The time taken to pay Housing Benefit may vary depending on your preferred method of payment, who the benefit is to be paid to, the date the claim is processed and the date any payments are authorised.

High Risk Cases

If risks are identified during a call for a new claim, Benefit entitlement shall not be processed and the customer shall be asked to provide further documentation in support of their claim.

If a high risk is identified during an intervention (review) call, future benefit payments are suspended pending receipt of additional information and documents.

In most instances, a visit will be arranged so a visiting officer can come and view the documents to prevent any further delay in the claim.  You will normally be advised in writing within one week of the date of call about when the visit will be.

Links

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/rrep716.pdf  Voice Risk Analysis Pilots: Perspectives from staff, claimants and potential claimants.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/vra-evaluation.pdf

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/security/voice-risk-analysis-vra/

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2010/dec-2010/dwp180-10-141210.shtml

HEATH AND SAFETY MADNESS PERHAPS?

OR THEY DON’T WANT ACCIDENTS RECORDED?

A few days ago i was shopping in Morrisons Redditch store  with my eight year old niece who whilst shopping cut herself on something in the store.

So my brother asked if he could have a plaster for her hand, no came the reply, why “were not allowed to give out plasters”

As she was bleeding, my brother went and got some off the shelf and paid for them. The staff member said she was trying to help,my brothers reply was you’re not as you would have given me a plaster.

The staff didn’t make a note of it in the accident book,could this be the reason why they wouldn’t hand over a plaster or is it for health and safety reasons.

I have contacted Morrisons a number of times by email, Facebook,Twitter and even contacted the press office but as yet they have ignored all contact with me.

Morrisons sent me this on March 10th

Thank you for your email,

I was most concerned to hear that your niece has cut herself within our Redditch store; I hope she is now feeling much better.

I would like to look into the matter further, would it be possible to let me know the date the incident happened, the time and where in store please?

Please reply to ————and quote the reference ——–,I can assure you on the receipt of your email the matter will be given my prompt attention.

Thank you in advance and I look forward to hearing from you

 

Thank you for sending the information,
I will be investigating the matter further with store and our Health and Safety department within the business and I will be in contact shortly.

Kind regards

Another story earlier this week was the story of a two-year old Redditch girl who was sent home with a fractured arm from the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch and told to come back in three days.

The little girls mom was forced to travel to the Birmingham children’s Hospital to get proper treatment for her daughter.

She warned parents to seek a second opinion if you’re not happy as you know your children best. 

  

Documentary series to go behind the scenes of West Midlands Police

SOME of the fascinating – and largely unseen – work of West Midlands Police will come under the spotlight from Monday, with the launch of a new BBC series taking a ‘behind the scenes’ look at the force.

Over the last five months award-winning film-makers Topical TV have been given unprecedented access to the work of officers, support staff and the many units and departments across the force.

Film crews have followed the work of departments including Air Operations, Forensics, Firearms, Collision Investigation, Public Protection and the Football Unit.

They have also captured footage of officers executing warrants for the non-payment of fines as part of Operation Crackown; the build up to Operation Pelkin, the force’s major security operation around the Lib Dem Party Conference in Birmingham; Walsall’s Operation Nominal, cracking down on vice-related activity in Walsall, and the investigation into the murder of 21-year-old university student Jay Sudra.

Screened to go out at 9.15am every day over two weeks from this Monday (12 March) ‘Crime and Punishment’ will be shown on BBC One, presented by Louise Minchin and Gethin Jones.

It forms part of the channel’s wider schedule of programmes to mark The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, looking at how life in Britain has changed since the 1950s.

The series incorporates footage from both WMP and the prison service and will be presented ‘as live’, offering viewers an insight into life in the uniformed services and the type of work officers and staff undertake on a daily basis.

Topical TV, who are responsible for creating popular series such as City Hospital and Real Rescues, pioneered the use of ‘presented live’ documentaries in programmes such as City Hospital. Real Rescues regularly attracts a daily audience of 1.4 million.

Peter Hayton, Editor of Topical TV, said: “I defy anyone to watch this series and not be impressed with the way the police carry out their work in an increasingly complicated and difficult world.”

He said highlights including the tragic murder of Jay Sudra, who was stabbed as he walked home in Erdington, Birmingham. “This was an extraordinary anatomy of a crime, the way the police and family together dealt with it and the ingenious detective work that trapped the murderer.”

Other highlights included the professionalism of Firearms teams who respond to potentially life threatening incidents on a daily basis and the ‘amazing’ work of the Paedophile Unit, he added.

VILE LORD JAILED FOR 4 YEARS

Former Council Leader Pleads Guilty To Sex offences Against Young Girl 35 years ago

  Pervert “Lord groomed a teenage girl for his own gratification”

The new Leader Adrian Hardman said “absolutely at the lower end of the scale

 Thirty years ago this never would have seen the light of day”

George Lord has admitted three counts of indecent assault which occurred between 1977 and 1979 on a girl aged between 14 and 15.

He had appeared at Birmingham Crown Court for a pre-trial review on the charges but changed his plea to guilty.

Judge Nigel Godsmark adjourned the case for a pre-sentence report to assess the risk Lord poses to women.

He was remanded in custody until the next hearing in April.

The former council leader resigned in November 2010 after allegations were made about inappropriate behaviour towards staff.

Det Insp Jon Wallis, of West Mercia Police, said: “While these two cases were separated by many years, in both George Lord has abused a position of authority.”

The force said that in the first case in the 1970s, Lord was a lay minister of a church who groomed a teenage girl for his own gratification.

In 2010, in his capacity as leader of Worcestershire County Council, he took advantage of a young woman in a junior position, the official added.

“We would like to reassure any other victims of similar offences that if they come forward, West Mercia Police will support them and pursue prosecutions wherever possible, regardless of when the offence took place,” Mr Wallis said.

Three Counts Of Indecent Assault

Worcestershire County Council said that when it told Lord of the allegations in November 2010, he resigned “a matter of days after the incident”.

Councillor Adrian Hardman, current leader of Worcestershire County Council, said: “I can reassure you that appropriate behaviour is expected of everyone at the council. No-one is exempt.”

David Elliott, from West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service, said: “George Lord used his positions of power and trust as a church minister and later as the leader of Worcestershire County Council to sexually abused vulnerable females.

No-one is exempt.”

“The victims should have been able to expect the highest levels of propriety and integrity from him, however, they were instead exploited for his own personal sexual gratification.”

He praised the courage of the woman who had come forward and reported to the police how Lord abused her 35 years ago.

Fall From Grace

It’s a dramatic fall from grace for Dr Lord who was also a Bromsgrove District councillor.

Lord first made headlines after it emerged he was getting over £70k  in allowances for his roles on Bromsgrove and WCC. But little did we know just what would emerge after the publicity he got for his expenses and allowances.

Hidden under the mask was a vile paedophile who groomed a teenage girl for his own gratification. Credit must be given to the brave people who came forward and reported the crimes that ended in his guilty plea Today.

The new Leader of Worcestershire County Council Councillor Adrian Hardman said in 2010 of the allegations made against George Lord

“absolutely at the lower end” of the scale.

He also remarked: “Thirty years ago this never would have seen the light of day”

Well you were wrong on both counts Adrian Hardman. The Councillor for Bredon claimed.

In the 2010/11 financial year Councillor Hardman raked in a total of £ 33,811.99 in allowances and expenses. 2,907.88 of it was in Travel/ Subsistence.

What happened to being a councillor to serve your community, that’s some miles you have claimed for Adrian.

He also got £4,200.00 for his role as a councillor on Wychavon District Council. and

2,708.60 from Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority

£ 33,811.99 Worcestershire County Council

£2,708.60 Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority

£4,200 Wychavon District Council

 Local Government Association – General Assembly (Member)

West Mercia Supplies (Member)

 West Mercia Supplies (Member) http://www.westmerciasupplies.co.uk/ref/accounts1011.pdf WMS is a Purchasing Consortium owned by four member authorities – Herefordshire Council, Shropshire Council, Telford & Wrekin Council and Worcestershire County Council.

Declaration of Financial Interests can be found here

more will follow after sentencing on Tuesday April 3rd or Wednesday 4th as the court date is yet to be confirmed.