The TaxPayers' Alliance - Media Coverage

The Sun: He lost his rights when James died

FURIOUS Brits last night joined The Sun in demanding the truth about child killer Jon Venables, saying: "He lost his rights when he murdered James Bulger."

Tens of thousands signed The Sun's petition or joined internet groups calling for the Government to confirm why Venables was recalled to prison. Venables, now 27, is back behind bars after breaching the terms of his licence, imposed when he was freed after just eight years inside for murdering two-year-old James on Merseyside in 1993.

But Justice Secretary Jack Straw is refusing to confirm what Venables has done.

Mum-of-two Caroline Griffin, 48, from Aldershot, Hants, said after signing The Sun's petition: "Venables is being protected under so-called human rights laws, but he lost those rights when he murdered that poor little boy.

"It's unbelievable that the rights of this child killer are being put before little James and his family."

Around 23,245 had signed The Sun's petition online by last night - just 24 hours after it was launched. And that total is set to soar when printed petition forms begin arriving at our London HQ.

Thousands more have signed up to internet protest groups calling for the truth. Last night a senior Tory said: "In the face of such strong and unified outcry, Jack Straw must yield to the demands of the people."

At least 150 separate campaigns have been launched on the internet, with names such as "We have a right to know why Jon Venables was rearrested" and "We should be told why Jon Venables is back in prison".

One group alone had 32,000 members last night, with more than 100,000 in total backing the cause.

Back behind he murdered Student Emma Perkinton, of Sheffield, wrote on one site:

"The officer who investigated the murder of James Bulger says whatever he has done must be serious. The public have a right to know what has happened."

Local councillor David Elderton, from the Wirral, said: "The law must take its course, but to avoid hysteria we ALL need to know why Jon Venables was sent to prison. No more secrecy."

The TaxPayers' Alliance also backed the cause. Spokesman Matthew Sinclair said: "We have paid a fortune for Jon Venables' return to prison, and the system that has clearly failed to rehabilitate him.

"It may be necessary to conceal some details to protect his new identity, but we have a right to know why he has been returned to jail."

Meanwhile new details emerged last night about Venables' return to jail - and the incredible secrecy surrounding it. He was taken to the unnamed jail by two plain-clothes cops in an unmarked police car with tinted windows. Only the most senior staff knew of his arrival.

The car was driven into a secure reception area and staff were banned from even LOOKING in his direction. Unusually, they were not told the identity of the cops who delivered him, and were instructed to make no official note of the car.

Neither Venables' fingerprints nor photo appear on jail records - just his new name. His sole visitor has been a member of his legal team.

Cork Evening Echo: Growing demands for more information on Bulger killer

The British Government tonight faced growing demands to release more information about Jon Venables’s return to prison – led by victims’ rights champion Helen Newlove.

Mrs Newlove, whose husband Garry was kicked to death by a gang of yobs outside their home in Warrington in 2007, said it was cruel not to tell James Bulger’s parents the full details.

She urged the British Prime Minister to think again after he and Justice Secretary Jack Straw declared the new allegations faced by the little boy’s murderer must remain secret.

Mrs Newlove said: “It is another case of the victims not coming into it and the criminals being protected.

“James’s poor mother and father have to relive what’s happened every day.

“What Jack Straw has said is ludicrous. Venables has breached his parole and should be staying in jail.

“Venables and Thompson have been given everything on a plate and now we’re not even allowed to know the circumstances surrounding this – it is a disgrace.

“Just telling the parents Venables was recalled is breadcrumbs – it is cruel not telling them more.

“It would terrify me to think he has been back to Merseyside. If you are out shopping and bump into that person it would make you physically sick and you don’t know what actions you would take.”

Venables, 27, was taken back to prison more than a week ago after reportedly fighting with a work colleague and developing a drug problem.

In 1993 he and Robert Thompson, both just 10 at the time, led two-year-old James from a Liverpool shopping centre on a two-mile walk to his death.

They battered the little boy and left his body on a railway track for a train to cut it in two.

In 2001 they were released from life sentences and given new identities protected by an anonymity order.

Yesterday Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the public had a right to know what new allegations Venables faced.

But he was apparently slapped down by the Prime Minister today who maintained that no details would be released.

Tonight pressure was mounting on the Government to change its stance after a flurry of charities and opposition politicians joined Mrs Newlove in demanding greater rights and better treatment for James’s family.

James’s mother Mrs Denise Fergus and her ex-husband only found out about Venables’s recall hours before news broke in the media.

Today in the Commons the Tories also demanded more details be disclosed claiming the information was in the public interest.

Shadow Commons leader Sir George Young asked Harriet Harman: “Do you agree with me and apparently the Home Secretary that unless there are very good reasons for keeping this information secret, it is in the public interest to know why Jon Venables has been sent back to prison?”

The Commons leader replied: “The question is the matter of the court order requiring anonymity, and I think the processes around that have got to be in compliance with the court order, which required that his identity should remain secret.”

A spokesman for Victim Support, Britain’s biggest victims of crime charity, said: “It is a severe example of a general problem that affects a lot of victims of crime – which is not being given information about what is going on.

“We know it is very frustrating for most victims of crime and quite upsetting for many of them to feel out of the loop in this way.”

Lyn Costello from Mothers Against Murder said: “I think the family has a right to know, but not necessarily the press and the public.

“Of course the family should be told because it adds to their stress.

“They are told it does not concern them, but of course it does – the original charge was for murdering their child.”

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers and the public in general have a right to know exactly why Venables has been returned to prison.

“This is a question of public safety and taxpayer value, given that a fortune has been spent on a new identity which has now been wrecked.

“Serious questions must be answered about the failings in the rehabilitation and probation programme.

“There have been massive costs and a serious failure here and the public have a right to know the details.”

BreakingNews.ie: Growing demands for more information on Bulger killer

The British Government tonight faced growing demands to release more information about Jon Venables's return to prison - led by victims' rights champion Helen Newlove.

Mrs Newlove, whose husband Garry was kicked to death by a gang of yobs outside their home in Warrington in 2007, said it was cruel not to tell James Bulger's parents the full details.

She urged the British Prime Minister to think again after he and Justice Secretary Jack Straw declared the new allegations faced by the little boy's murderer must remain secret.

Mrs Newlove said: "It is another case of the victims not coming into it and the criminals being protected.

"James's poor mother and father have to relive what's happened every day.

"What Jack Straw has said is ludicrous. Venables has breached his parole and should be staying in jail.

"Venables and Thompson have been given everything on a plate and now we're not even allowed to know the circumstances surrounding this - it is a disgrace.

"Just telling the parents Venables was recalled is breadcrumbs - it is cruel not telling them more.

"It would terrify me to think he has been back to Merseyside. If you are out shopping and bump into that person it would make you physically sick and you don't know what actions you would take."

Venables, 27, was taken back to prison more than a week ago after reportedly fighting with a work colleague and developing a drug problem.

In 1993 he and Robert Thompson, both just 10 at the time, led two-year-old James from a Liverpool shopping centre on a two-mile walk to his death.

They battered the little boy and left his body on a railway track for a train to cut it in two.

In 2001 they were released from life sentences and given new identities protected by an anonymity order.

Yesterday Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the public had a right to know what new allegations Venables faced.

But he was apparently slapped down by the Prime Minister today who maintained that no details would be released.

Tonight pressure was mounting on the Government to change its stance after a flurry of charities and opposition politicians joined Mrs Newlove in demanding greater rights and better treatment for James's family.

James's mother Mrs Denise Fergus and her ex-husband only found out about Venables's recall hours before news broke in the media.

Today in the Commons the Tories also demanded more details be disclosed claiming the information was in the public interest.

Shadow Commons leader Sir George Young asked Harriet Harman: "Do you agree with me and apparently the Home Secretary that unless there are very good reasons for keeping this information secret, it is in the public interest to know why Jon Venables has been sent back to prison?"

The Commons leader replied: "The question is the matter of the court order requiring anonymity, and I think the processes around that have got to be in compliance with the court order, which required that his identity should remain secret."

A spokesman for Victim Support, Britain's biggest victims of crime charity, said: "It is a severe example of a general problem that affects a lot of victims of crime - which is not being given information about what is going on.

"We know it is very frustrating for most victims of crime and quite upsetting for many of them to feel out of the loop in this way."

Lyn Costello from Mothers Against Murder said: "I think the family has a right to know, but not necessarily the press and the public.

"Of course the family should be told because it adds to their stress.

"They are told it does not concern them, but of course it does - the original charge was for murdering their child."

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Taxpayers and the public in general have a right to know exactly why Venables has been returned to prison.

"This is a question of public safety and taxpayer value, given that a fortune has been spent on a new identity which has now been wrecked.

"Serious questions must be answered about the failings in the rehabilitation and probation programme.

"There have been massive costs and a serious failure here and the public have a right to know the details."

Daily Telegraph: Pay for suspended police officers cost £53 million in five years

Police officers put on "gardening leave" during disciplinary proceedings have cost taxpayers £53million in the past five years, according to new figures.

A total of 223 officers were suspended on full pay at the start of this year, including Ali Dizaei, the disgraced Scotland Yard commander who was convicted of corruption last month.

He was paid around £260,000 during the four years he was suspended awaiting two trials.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed that from Jan 1, a total of 180 constables, on an average salary of £30,000, were suspended pending disciplinary hearings or criminal trials.

There were also 32 sergeants, five inspectors, two chief inspectors, two superintendents, one chief superintendent and Commander Dizaei, who was on a £90,000-a-year salary.

Matthew Elliot, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Taxpayers would benefit from a swifter, more efficient system."

The Metropolitan Police, the largest force, had 32 officers suspended, followed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (26), Kent (11), West Midlands (nine) and South Wales and Grampian, both with eight.

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "We are continuing to work on speeding up the investigation process when it comes to staff suspended on full pay."

Sir Paul Stephenson, the Scotland Yard commissioner, has called for a review of disciplinary processes and wants the right to hire and fire his own senior officers.

Metro: Cash-strapped Hampshire police spend £500,000 trying to save money

If your organisation was so short of money that you axed 200 jobs in a year and used volunteers in senior positions, would you spend £500,000 to save money?

Why not set up a dedicated team to study your options for you, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £500,000?

Well, that’s just what Hampshire police have done.

The project, which will take nine officers away from their day jobs, has been branded a waste of money and resources by critics.

‘I think a lot of people will be surprised to learn that saving money costs so much,’ said Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

The team has been told to find ways of cutting costs to meet the force’s £313million budget for 2010/11. It is being led by Isle of Wight police Chief Supt David Thomas, who earns £100,181 a year. 

Hampshire Police Authority claims the scheme will slash millions of pounds from running costs.

‘They are coming up with good savings,’ said the authority’s Sean Woodward. ‘Their target is in the millions. As a result of their work so far we’re looking at reduced council tax rises.

‘It is spend to save.’

Hampshire police cut jobs and overtime and used special constables in CID to save £11million in 2009.

It follows news that Northamptonshire council is spending £100,000 asking for ways to save £100million.

Police Oracle: Suspended Officers Paid £53m

Police Officers suspended on full pay during disciplinary proceedings have been paid £53million in five years, it emerged yesterday.

Figures from the UK's 52 forces show 222 officers were on "gardening leave" at the start of this year.

More than a quarter had been on full pay for more than a year.

One officer had been off more than five years and another three off for more than four.

In total 180 constables (average salary £30,000), were suspended - along with 32 sergeants (£38,000), five inspectors (£48,000), two Chief Inspectors (£52,000) two Superintendents (£66,000) and one Chief Superintendent (£75,000).

A Freedom of Information request by The Sun newspaper found the forces with the most officers suspended were the Met with 32, Police Service of Northern Ireland (26), Kent (11), West Midlands (nine) and South Wales and Grampian, both with eight.

Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said "It is hugely expensive for cases to be allowed to drag on. It's unjust, costly, and not fair on the officers either. Taxpayers and those involved would benefit from a swifter, more efficient system."

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said "We are continuing to work on speeding up the investigation process when it comes to staff suspended on full pay."

The Sun: Banned cops paid £53m wages... for doing nothing

COPS suspended on full pay during disciplinary proceedings have trousered £53million in five years for doing nothing, it emerged yesterday.

Figures from the UK's 52 forces show 222 officers were on "gardening leave" at the start of this year.

More than a quarter had been on full pay for more than a year.

One officer had been off more than FIVE years and another three off for more than four.

In total 180 constables (average salary £30,000), were suspended - along with 32 sergeants (£38,000), five inspectors (£48,000), two Chief Inspectors (£52,000) two Superintendents (£66,000) and one Chief Superintendent (£75,000).

A Freedom of Information request by The Sun found the forces with the most officers suspended were the Met with 32, Police Service of Northern Ireland (26), Kent (11), West Midlands (nine) and South Wales and Grampian, both with eight.

Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is hugely expensive for cases to be allowed to drag on. It's unjust, costly, and not fair on the officers either. Taxpayers and those involved would benefit from a swifter, more efficient system."

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "We are continuing to work on speeding up the investigation process when it comes to staff suspended on full pay."

Oxford Mail: Police overtime bill to hit £1.4m

CONCERNS have been raised that police will pay out more than £1.4m to pay for officers’ overtime in 2009-10.

Estimates put forward by Thames Valley Police Authority predicted an outlay of £1,453,000 in Oxfordshire, the equivalent of £1,700 for each of the 857 sergeants and constables in the county and £23,000 more than originally budgeted for.

Both the police authority and the force refused to release the previous year’s figure for comparison.

Thames Valley Police Federation chairman John Grant, whose organisation represents rank and file officers, said: “It is not surprising overtime is so high because we are so under- resourced in terms of officers per head of population, compared to other forces.

“Until that is rectified, officers will continue to have to take overtime.”

According to the Home Office, Thames Valley ranks 34th out of 43 forces across the country for the proportion of officers to population. It has 198 officers to every 100,000 people.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Such a large overtime bill suggests serious flaws in the allocation of resources.

“In an emergency service some overtime is inevitable, but it becomes a problem if you are using overtime to plug gaps due to understaffing. This is expensive and also represents a lot of officers being overworked.”

Chief Supt Brendan O’Dowda, the Oxfordshire police commander, said the force would not comment on the scale of overtime payments.

Chief Con Grahame Maxwell, the the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead member for finance and resources, says all forces should monitor overtime payments, after a Government report recommended national police savings of £545m.

Thames Valley is looking to save £40m over the next three years.

Mr Maxwell added: “Overtime reflects the realities of modern policing. It should always be monitored by chief officers and police authorities for cost effectiveness.”

Police authority chairman Khan Juna said: “In reactive organisations, such as the police force, overtime is always going to be part of ongoing costs.

“The authority is concerned about all expenditure, including overtime, and monitors this on a regular basis across the force.”

Coventry Telegraph: Repair bill £1,000 for fuelish cops

BUNGLING cops put the wrong fuel in their vehicles SEVEN times last year.

The figures, released following a Freedom of Information Act request from the Telegraph, show the blunders cost the West Midlands force nearly pounds 1,000 in repairs.

But a force statement said staff responsible for the errors weren't retrained because an electronic fuel key system should prevent misfuelling.

The system means officers refuelling vehicles at one of the force's 27 sites have to scan their fuel key and enter the total number of miles travelled before they can fill up.

Computers on site are programmed to automatically dispense the correct f uel.

A spokesman for the force said that vehicles would have been misfuelled at commercial outlets instead of a force site. The fuel key system has been in place in the force for 20 years and has been upgraded five times.

Full training is always given on the system.

The spokesman added: "A fuel key will only allow fuel to be drawn for that particular vehicle, so officers cannot swap the keys. If the key is lost, a master key can be used."

John O'Connell, policy analyst at the TaxPayers' Alliance, criticised the force for splashing so much cash on an avoidable problem.

"These misfuelling costs are far too high," he said.

"Accidents happen every now and then but this carelessness hits taxpayers in the pocket.

"It's especially frustrating when the mechanisms are supposed to be in place to stop this happening in the first place.

"Lots of little things like this means money not spent on frontline policing, which is what hard-working families want."

A spokesman for the AA estimated that every day 410 people misfuel their vehicles in the UK.

"About 95 per cent of cases are people putting petrol into diesel vehicles due to the wider diesel filler neck and narrower unleaded nozzle," he said.

"The damage really depends on the level of contamination and if, and for how long, the car was run on the contaminated fuel.

"In a lot of cases, you can get away with just a fuel drain at a cost of around pounds 300 but if the car was driven you can wreck the engine, so you could be faced with a bill for a new one at around pounds 5,000.

"Even if the engine wasn't started, many manufacturers often recommend changing parts, filters and seals, even just for relatively small amount of contamination, particularly if the vehicle is under warranty."

Animal Friends Insurance: Police dog training to include blogging?

A police dog that has recently joined the Cambridgeshire dog training programme has started a blog.

Paul, Lukas' handler, whose surname is not revealed, writes the blog on behalf of the German shepherd on the force's website.

Lukas promises to update the blog on a monthly basis describing such things as his home life, his kennel and detailed aspects of the training programme.

Paul, in character as the puppy, describes his experience of going to a Peterborough United match, saying: "I also went along to the Peterborough United home game with all the other dogs because Paul said I need to start to get used to being around big crowds."

But, that's not all, as Lukas reveals his dream of completing his training over the next year so that he can become a real police dog, just like his brothers and sisters.

However, a taxpayers' campaign, the TaxPayers' Alliance, has criticised such blogs for wasting time and money and having no public benefit.