Real Policing

Dear Dr. Reid

I do not suppose for one minute that you expect unanswered speech and after reading your comments in today’s Sunday Telegraph I wish to respond. 

Firstly, I would like to bring to your attention the issue of multiple criming.  As a result of your office measuring the productivity of police officers based upon arrests, detection rates, intelligence and stop & search form submissions, this has led, predictably, to certain undesirable practices in order to satisfy a thirst for statistics.  One such practice is the multiple criming and detecting of a single offence.  Although the extent to which multiple criming occurs remains unknown, it would be logical to assume that where such performance indicators exist, a certain degree of manipluation of the figures exists also.  It would also be logical to extrapolate that the practice of “two for the price of one,” or in some cases “five for the price of one,” is widespread.  Whilst I appreciate the role of the force crime manager, to act as a check and balance safeguard in order to ensure correct and accurate criming, it would be unrealistic to assume that crime managers scrutinise each and every crime report which passes their desk for evidence of multiple criming.  Consequently, if such a practice occurs and is not identified, it can only serve to obscure and cast doubt on the validity and accuracy of crime data.  It is worth noting that statistics and targets, so beloved of your government, are of limited importance and meaning to the public, whose belief in the effectiveness of the police and how well they are performing is neither measured nor reflected in percentages.  People believe what they see and, in this case, what they don’t see. 

In respect of neighbourhood policing initiatives and police community support officers (PCSOs), their impact on response officers has been both devastating and burdensome.  In order to resource neighbourhood policing teams, officers have been taken from response teams which in turn has decimated the number of round the clock response officers.  A dearth of response officers remain to answer calls for immediate assistance which, in most cases, is beyond the remit of the new neighbourhood policing officers.  Already over-stretched resources are stretched even further as a result.  As for the new policing teams and PCSOs helping to address anti-social behaviour, including vandalism and criminal damage, their success is debatable considering that an immediate response call to youths seen drinking and causing damage is invariably dealt with by over-stretched and under-resourced response officers.  Interestingly, if the latest crime figures are to be relied upon, aren’t vandalism and criminal damage among those recorded offences which have actually increased?  Further, some members of the public have commented that particular areas of their towns and cities are considered by PCSOs to be “no go areas” as they are fearful of verbal and/or physical abuse.  When a PCSO is inclined to deal with such incidents, an assistance shout for a police officer soon follows after which the officer is burdened with the resultant paperwork and, possibly, time in custody.  The PCSO is then free to return to the streets whilst already limited resources are now yet another officer short and the public less protected as a result.   

Regarding the improvements brought to the service in the last ten years, such as protective personal kit or the DNA database, whilst the value of these advances is recognised, improvements on our streets where it truly matters have not materialised.  A visible and regular police presence is no more of a reality now than it was in 1997, despite the investment in 14,000 extra officers.  The extra investment merely served to augment the number of those officers attached to their computers and over-burdened by repetitive and duplicative paperwork.  The system will continue to function poorly, no matter how many bodies or how much money is thrown into it, if the processes which keep officers in the station and off the street remain unchanged.  Putting PCSOs out on the street to compensate and also perpetuate the inefficient cycle was never a sensible long-term solution and a belief that their presence would drive down crime and reassure the public was ill-conceived.  Their employment as civilian workers to take statements and fulfil officers’ station based duties, thereby creating more time spent on the street by the sworn officer, would have made far more sense. 

Importantly, you have recognised the frustrations of front-line officers and the public’s agenda, in addition to the need to rebuild the links with local people that the service had begun to lose in the eighties and nineties.  If such links were identified as being lost in the eighties and nineties, why after ten years of Labour Government are the British people still waiting to see police officers regularly patrolling their streets, preventing and deterring crime and providing reassurance?  Why, after ten years, are yet more initiatives or another review necessary to tell you what you ought to know already, if indeed this decline has been identified as occurring during the last twenty five years?  How can you expect the British people to trust you now and why indeed should they?  It would appear, sir, that the timing of your sudden epiphany and subsequent review is no accident.

If I may be so bold, I wish to test the endurance of your appetite and ambition for change and reform of the police service.  I suggest that you contrast whatever insights or revelations Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s review provides you with by attending a ride along in the back of a police car with officers on a friday night in any large British town or city.  You will learn a great deal more, a posteriori, than by merely sitting behind a desk reading about it.  Indubitably, as with all successive Home Secretaries who have promised reform and failed to deliver, seeing is believing.      

Sincerely,

Johnno Hills. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/29/do2901.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6594997.stm

When I hear the figure of 143,000 police officers in England & Wales bandied about, I am never quite sure whether that refers to the total number of serving officers or just uniformed officers with the responsibility for street policing.  In lieu of a breakdown in composition I assume it refers to the total number.  It may sound a lot but if you consider only the number of those responsible for properly policing the streets, (when paperwork and detections allow), which I am sure is far less than 143,000, it actually isn’t very many at all.  From the number of officers who provide front line duties (response teams) subtract neighbourhood policing officers, those on non-response duties, those seconded to specialist units and also officers taken from response teams to staff various operations.  In addition, training, attachments, rest days, annual leave, court duties and sickness must also be considered.

I am confident that my own experiences reflect those of officers countrywide and therefore I shall speak from them.  The effects of a lack of resources are considerable for both officers and the public alike.  What it means for the public is a delay in police attending an incident (either one in progress or slow-time), a cursory attendance by officers if and when the incident is resourced, victim support which is woefully inadequate, a protracted investigation (along with several others the attending officer may be investigating at the time), in addition to a lack of faith in the ability of the police to prevent crime.

For the rank & file officer, a lack of resources means being run ragged for eight, nine or ten hours minimum, a delay in attending incidents, a cursory service and scant support given to the victim of crime and being called away from one immediate incident to attend another as either the only available resource or the only one trained to contravene driving regulations.  It also means limited, delayed or absolutely no back up from fellow officers, which compromises officer safety, a judgement call as to whether an arrest is absolutely necessary given that to do so would weaken officer numbers further, a delay in dealing with current live investigations and absolutely no opportunity to prevent crime by proactive policing.                 

Further, the one hour overlap of the oncoming shift provides the only opportunity for officers to complete paperwork accumulated that day, if indeed they have no prisoner to deal with.  However, if the oncoming shift is themselves low on resources the arresting officer staying on to deal with their offender in custody is highly likely.  I lost count of the amount of times I was told I had to stay on to deal with a prisoner or asked to stay on an extra three hours to support (or “backfill” as it is otherwise known) the oncoming shift.  Similarly, for officers on court duty, they are also expected to backfill their own shift coming on duty later on in the day after leaving them short on numbers by having to spend the day at court.  Viewed in context with the burden of excessive bureaucracy, paperwork and the target driven detection culture, it makes for an intolerable set of circumstances under which law and order is diminishing.  It is by no means an overstatement to suggest that the above is all in a day’s work for Britain’s rank and file police officers.   

If any further examples were needed, please visit the link below.  Do continue to support your officers who need your help and support more than ever.  Many thanks.  I shall be back with you soon.  All the best.

Johnno. 

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=58&articleid=2727479&ArticlePage=1

In 2001, the Government introduced penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) specifically to tackle low-level anti-social behaviour and to reduce police bureaucracy.  PNDs are one method used by police to deal with offences such as retail theft to the value of £200, destroying or damaging property up to the value of £500, behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others and also using threatening words or behaviour.  Notices can be issued to someone over the age of 16 for either £50 or £80 depending on the severity of the behaviour and are considered by crime managers to be what is known as a ’sanctioned detection.’ 

When I received my first book of penalty notices during one particular night shift briefing, I remember being told that if I caught someone urinating in the street or in an alleyway in the town centre, such behaviour could be dealt with by way of a PND, as the act itself could be considered likely to cause harassment alarm or distress to others (an offence contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986).  In such circumstances the notices were issued on the street for the fine to be paid by the offender within 21 days unless he/she wished to dispute the matter at court.  In the case of more serious public disorder, such as using threatening words or behaviour, the offender was arrested and could also be given the choice (once sober) of accepting a penalty notice as an alternative to a caution or court if their previous offending history (or lack thereof) allowed.  The amount of paperwork generated by issuing a penalty notice is minimal so in that respect it does what it promises.  However, the PND system works hand in hand with the target driven detection culture.

Not long after the system was introduced, at another night shift briefing, my colleagues and I were told that we were no longer permitted to issue penalty notices to pub and clubgoers surreptitiously urinating in the streets or alleyways due to the sheer volume we had hitherto issued.  The significance was that each notice counted as a public order offence which in turn contributed to the town’s violent crime statistics.  The result being that the most innocuous of towns could appear to be a hotbed of violent crime.  This period also represented a time of personal conflict, as something which was formerly dealt with using wise words to “put it away and go home,” was now dealt with by way of a PND which, co-incidently, also provided a tick in the detection box.  Significantly, it meant that people were now being criminalised in order to satisfy performance criteria.   

Moreover, penalty notices have also been criticised by magistrates and politicians who suggest that they are being issued inappropriately.  Some magistrates have stated that PNDs are issued too readily to offenders where an arrest and charge would be more appropriate and that their effect as a deterrent is limited.  Some politicians have argued that many penalty notices go unpaid and contend that certain offenders will commit crime in order to pay their fine.  As a deterrent to the first-timer, intermittent offender or even the career criminal (who wouldn’t qualify for them anyway), the effectiveness of the PND is debatable.  As a means to a quick and easy detection, the introduction of the penalty notice, in conjunction with the target driven detection culture, has proved both timely and invaluable.           

Of all my lasting impressions regarding the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the most vivid took place last September.  A 250 page case file which took me three days to complete and was bound for crown court had arrived back on my desk with a note attached to it asking me to photocopy the contents and send it back to the Trials Unit.  The rationale for sending a file from one side of Brighton to the other purely for copying escaped me although when I phoned the trials unit to clarify the request they told me there was nobody available in their office to do it.  As is so often the case, if something needs doing, send it back to the investigating officer.  To be sure, the administrative demands of the CPS on rank and file officers play no small part in keeping them off the streets and station bound, providing yet another reason why the employment of civilian staff in dealing with such demands is so desparately needed.

The CPS was established in 1986 under the direction of the director of public prosecutions, consisting of a merger of his old department with the existing police prosecution departments.  The CPS is responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales.  I spoke with long-serving officers when I was in the job and retired officers since who have all said that years ago magistrates accepted a paper summary of events in addition to a print of the offender’s previous convictions.  This practice was interpreted differently from one region to another.  Nowadays, upon charging an offender, rank and file officers have to prepare what is known as a ‘fast track file,’ an ‘expedited file,’ or a ‘narey file,’ which follows the defendant to his or her first appearance in the Magistrates’ Court.  This file contains the investigation papers created up until the point of charge.  It can consist of, on average, forty pieces of paper at the very least and can easily exceed one hundred.  If done properly, the file can take two to three hours to complete.  The repetition and duplication involved is both time consuming and painful.  Invariably, the file has to be completed before an officer finishes his or her shift which by that time can exceed ten hours.  

Once at court, if the defendant pleads guilty, the case file papers are retained and archived.  If the defendant pleads not guilty, the file is sent back to the officer to upgrade into a full trial file (like the one sent back to me for copying).  Depending on how much evidence is to form part of the main section of the upgraded file and also how much unused material (investigation papers which don’t form part of the main file but which still need to be included and listed on typed schedules) there is, this file can consist of hundreds of pieces of paper and take a good few days to complete.  Now, the obvious question is, considering that formerly a summary to the magistrates of the incident and previous convictions sufficed, why is it necessary for the CPS to possess the extent of information which, depending on the initial plea of the defendant, will have been completed needlessly?  I can only conclude that the CPS, even at that early stage in proceedings, want to be prepared evidentially for every eventuality.  

Such preparation has considerable consequences for uniformed officers and makes the difference between the time they spend out on the street and time spent in the station.  Likewise with the full file upgrade (every officer’s worst nightmare).  Although some forces have prosecution case workers who prepare a proportion of full files, the majority are left to officers to complete.  Court files are returned to rank and file officers to upgrade because there is no-one else available to complete them.  However, that does not justify leaving time-intensive files for completion by officers along with subsequent memos from the CPS with numerous bullet points asking them to carry out further enquiries and take further statements.  That should be for non-police staff to assist with.  Uniformed officers have too much to do already responding to the radio, carrying out current investigations, taking statements, getting five detections for the month, arresting, interviewing and charging offenders and also, when the opportunity allows, carrying out some pro-active and preventative policing.  Regrettably, by virtue of the burdens placed upon them, modern British police officers are serving the CPS far more and the public far less.          

I shall keep this one short and sweet as I have noticed my posts getting longer and longer and could quite easily be mistaken for sermons.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has supported the petition so far.  Reaching 1,000 signatures was something of a mini milestone, however, there is still a long way to go.  I must confess I became a little perplexed that 2,000 people signed the petition on the Downing Street website within a day or so voicing their disapproval that the marines captured by Iran were given permission, albeit briefly, to sell their stories.  I also considered the multitude who signed the petition against road pricing and the success the use of their voice resulted in.  However, what the petition lacks at this time in quantity it certainly makes up for in quality.  The comments left by angered, concerned, frightened and disillusioned members of the public give this campaign the context, legitimacy and impetus it needs in order to thrive.  Similarly, I would also like to thank in earnest all those currently serving officers who, despite possible repercussions, have shown courage and conviction by signing the petition.  Likewise to those retired officers whose good work throughout the decades has been so comprehensively undone, particularly in the last ten years. 

The success of this campaign undoubtedly lies in the efforts of those at grass roots level.  Please continue to support the petition by signing and spreading the word to as many people as possible, including your local MPs.  Do print off a petition for those in your community to sign who do not have internet access.  The PO Box to send signed petitions back to is, Real Policing, PO Box 5217, Hove, BN52 9LL.  Many thanks again for your continued support.  I shall be back with you again soon.  All the best.

Johnno.   

I’ve asked myself many times over the last four years why I kept seeing the same faces in custody day after day.  We must have been doing our job if we were consistently bringing them in.  Or were we?  Had we succeeded by capturing the offender or failed by not preventing the crime from taking place?  In the majority of cases these arrests came only after an incident had occurred.  Pro-active arrests were the exception, not the rule.  I know that from not being the only one called from the station to an incident in progress.  A crime had taken place and someone had become a victim of it.  Could police have prevented that particular crime?  Who can say?  Realistically, the police are not ubiquitous and cannot be in all places at all times.  However, I have no doubt that far more crime is prevented out on the streets than sitting behind a desk or hurtling along the road at 60mph with lights and sirens blazing.  For some who commit crime what they lack in smarts they make up for in audacity.  They too are members of the public who know an opportunity when they see it and know how such an opportunity is rarely frustrated by a visible police presence. 

If a small percentage of the population consistently commits the majority of crime, how much of a deterrent is it to them having their last thirty, sixty or ninety crimes detected?  The Police National Computer print of every career criminal’s offending history will bear testament to their persistent criminality and only details those crimes committed for which they have been caught.  I and every other officer have dealt with too many repeat offenders, too many recalls to prison and too many breaches of bail or ASBO conditions to know that to a career criminal detections are absolutely no deterrent at all.  If the opportunity presents itself invariably it is seized upon.  Being caught is merely an occupational hazard.  Being caught at the scene is perhaps less likely.  

Not all crime is motivated by a dependence on drugs or alcohol.  There are those who have absolutely no regard for the law and can make more money in a shorter space of time selling drugs or stolen goods than they could doing an honest day’s work.  In either case the criminal act requires the opportunity.  There is no denying that intervention and close supervision is necessary in order to encourage decent living for those recently released from prison.  However, that must work in tandem with high visibility targeted police patrols in order that persistent offenders realise police are never far away and that their opportunities are few.  Most importantly, the public must be protected and reassured.  I’m not convinced we do succeed when we detect a crime that has already happened.  You could argue, however unrealistic it may be, that it is an indictment on our ability to prevent crime from occurring at all.  All these detection figures tell us is how good (or bad, considering that the national detection rate hovers around the 30% mark) we are at dealing with a crime after the fact.  How important is that to someone who would rather not be a victim of crime than the victim of a detected crime?  General experiences lead me to the conclusion that a detection is no deterrent to persistent offenders and in no way reassures the public of the ability of police to prevent crime and disorder.  Let’s also not forget that a detection is not a conviction.       

One of the objectives of this website is to channel information between the public and its officers in order to inform and also clarify misconceptions and misunderstandings. I have seen references among some who have signed the petition criticising the national crime recording standard (NCRS) and its effects on modern policing. Until now I had only a vague practical knowledge of NCRS upon which to base my opinion and in order to gain a theoretical understanding I visited the Home Office website. 

NCRS was adopted by all 43 forces in England & Wales in April, 2002, and provides a set of guidelines intended to create greater consistency between forces in recording crime.  It is also intended to take a more victim-orientated approach to crime recording.  I was told recently that prior to NCRS, upon report of a crime, officers would seek the senior officer in possession of the crime recording log and take the next available number.  This number would then correspond to the reported crime.  I imagine this was not considered to be the most effective and accurate way to record reported crime hence the need for a national framework.  In theory, NCRS ensures the consistent and accurate recording of crime, however, the results of its practical application have caused rank & file officers some problems. 

There are those among the rank & file who believe NCRS has led to incidents being recorded as crimes unnecessarily.  Others feel that NCRS has relieved them of their discretion to deal with and resolve an incident by methods which do not necessarily result in recording or detecting a crime (e.g. strong words of advice).  Each incident is assigned an opening code as a result of the initial circumstances given to the call taker and a closing code as a result of the attending officer’s remarks.  This is known as “resulting” or “writing off” the incident which effectively closes the police log with information that a crime has or has not taken place.  In terms of the victim-orientated approach, it is not always the case that an incident as it is related to call takers reflects the true circumstances as discovered upon police arrival.  Officers have found that some incident logs can be closed with the radio controller easily whilst others cannot.  This is where the problem progresses with the attendant paperwork required to file a crime as either undetected or by what is called “no-criming” (where there is no evidence to suggest that a crime has actually taken place) if the officer was unsuccessful in no-criming the log at the result/write off stage. 

Therefore, the problem of NCRS lies in the paperwork as a result of the reporting and recording of certain incidents in addition to the unrealistic level of investigation expected of officers in those circumstances where there are no lines of enquiry or there is no evidence to suggest a crime has taken place.  Please don’t get me wrong, where genuine lines of enquiry exist they should be investigated.  In every instance victim care is paramount.  The issue of what officers are having to record (playground altercations reported to police by the school or parents) plays no small part in the paperwork quagmire and demonstrates the apparent inflexibility of NCRS.

So, a set of national guidelines intended to create consistency in crime recording ought to be considered requisite as a matter of good practice.  However, the paperwork created as a result, whether the reported crime is legitimate or not, is in part responsible for the time our officers spend in the station when they could be policing our streets.  It is the effect of NCRS on officers and its inflexibility which is the problem, not necessarily NCRS itself.  Indeed, it doesn’t have to be half the problem some officers consider it to be if civilian staff were employed to complete the paperwork it creates.  I shall leave the obvious link between NCRS and the rampant detection culture for another day.  Thank you for bearing with me.  All the best.

Johnno.               

I read with eager anticipation the news story on 6th April, 2007, entitled ‘Clampdown on Knives and Phone Theft,’  which outlined new measures to combat gun and knife crime, mobile phone robberies and hooliganism.  The story explained the new powers given to police and trading standards officers under parts of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.  There is no doubt that legislation is a pre-requisite in dealing with the offences which it criminalises but is of little use if police officers are not readily on the streets to enforce it. 

Depending on which statistic you choose to believe, sir, how much of an effect do you consider one in fifty eight police officers on patrol at any one time is going to have enforcing your new legislation?  How effective are a third of police officers who are tied to their desks due to paperwork going to be at exercising their new powers?  How effective is the officer who has to spend an average of ten hours and six minutes dealing with a single prisoner in custody going to be in preventing such crimes of theft, robbery and hooliganism?

Do you truly believe that legislation alone is going to combat the problem?  Legislation is merely one tool in an utterly useless box if there is no law enforcement officer readily available to exercise the power the legislation confers.  You have once again failed to address the issue in its entirety and your solution merely addresses part of the problem.  The lack of a visible police presence has created the opportunity for violent crime to flourish to its current proportions despite your assertions that police numbers have never been greater.  Your legislation, without a visible police presence to enforce it, will neither deter, prevent, reassure nor punish.   

If that were not enough, you have the audacity to extol your government’s interference and shambolic mismanagement of the police force by stating that this current legislation builds on the solid foundations laid by it to tackle violent crime and disorder on our streets.  For every law-abiding citizen in this country, every person who has signed this petition and every rank and file officer who serves or has served in the British police force your words ring hollow.  You continue to insult us and let us down.  Make no mistake, sir, your government’s actions, or lack thereof, rather than building solid foundations have served only to undermine and destroy them.     

Sincerely,

Johnno Hills. 

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=news2005&ux_news[id]=safeneighbourhoods&no_cache=1

A former colleague and I were discussing recently the statistical findings of an internal Scotland Yard survey that it takes an officer on average ten hours and six minutes to process a single arrest.  During our mutterings he remarked that when paramedics take a patient to hospital they don’t stay to administer treatment or remain with the patient in order to carry out emergency surgery.  There are casualty staff, doctors and nurses to do that.  The role of the paramedic is to respond to and deal with emergencies and transport a patient to casualty if the need arises.  After delivery of the patient to the next recipient in the process and with relative efficiency they again become an available resource. 

Following that logic and given the basic responsibilities of a police officer to prevent crime and disorder, something which can only be achieved through a visible police presence, I was left wondering.  Why the disparity in procedure between a police officer and a paramedic given that there is no necessary proactivity in the ambulance service as there is in policing?  I wondered why a police officer could not leave their prisoner in custody to be dealt with by a civilian investigator or other member of a prisoner handling team.  It makes absolutely no practical sense at all to commit an officer whose time could be better spent out on the street providing reassurance and preventing or responding to crime to ten hours in custody.  There is nothing an officer does once in custody with a prisoner that a civilian investigator cannot do or be trained to do.  The proof of this exists in every large town or city custody which has the benefit of prosecution/prisoner handling teams.  Their value and benefit to the overall efficiency of the service is overlooked and under developed.  Their wider implimentation as a matter of common practice could have profound effects on the efficiency of the force.  Too much is made the responsibility of the uniform constable (of which there simply aren’t enough) to complete.  The consequences leave the public and the streets unprotected and create ample opportunity for those who don’t play ball to commit crime.  

Many thanks to those of you who signed the petition today which has seen another terrific response.  Please continue to show your support by printing off a petition and collecting signatures from those who do not have internet access.  Don’t forget to test the commitment of your local MP by asking them to sign too.  I shall be back with you again soon.  All the best.

Johnno.             

I have come to realise that there is a fine line between using examples to highlight a problem and bringing an organisation into disrepute by doing so.  The examples I have given so far in the press regarding Home Office target driven policy dictating policing methods have needed to be detailed in order to illustrate certain points.  Such examples are, however, something of a double edge sword as they can also be misinterpreted as to cast doubt on the integrity of rank and file officers and on the force itself.  They must be considered in the light of the public’s right to know and understand the true nature of modern policing which includes the work practices of its officers.  

It would be unfair to hold rank and file officers responsible for the two-tier system of policing that the target driven detection culture has given rise to.  Due consideration must also be given to the policies which dictate the practices.  Indeed, detections are the yardstick by which an officer’s productivity and performance is measured and becomes the holy grail whether they like it or not.  The internal conflict and pressure this creates is considerable for an officer whose role also consists of so much that is not measured in terms of detectable crime.  How can the productivity of an officer who has gained three street cautions in one night for possession of cannabis be compared to that of an officer who has arrested, processed and charged a drink driver with an offence which could have resulted in the loss of a life other than the driver’s and for which there is no tick in the detection box?  How can such a perverse system of measurement ever be considered fair when it values quantity over quality?  Its effects on morale and motivation are devastating.  However, this is not reflected in the statistics and for those who sit in their counting houses as long as the figures are rolling in there is no problem.  They have themselves bought into the whole detection culture unremittingly and over emphasised its importance to the public who would rather not be a victim of crime at all than the victim of a detected one.  They have also failed to protect their officers from its effects which is hardly surprising when their own performance is judged on that of their officers.  If ever I have brought the force into disrepute then without doubt so have they.

Many thanks to you all for the best day yet for the petition yesterday.  There is now a printable version of the petition via the link on the home page.  Please do print one off and offer it to anyone you know who does not have internet access.  I shall update you in a week or two with a PO box address to send it back to.  All the best.  I shall be back with you again soon.

Johnno.