Given Saturday's subject matter, I was none too pleased to read about this, from one of the home education lists on which I normally lurk.
In the name of something the Home Office website ominously describes as "Citizen Focused Policing" (is Criminal Focused Policing too last century?) it appears that Chief Officers can grant numerous powers of this, that and the other to "persons accredited under Community Safety Accreditation Schemes":
"Community Safety Accreditation Schemes enable chief constables to designate limited powers to employees of organisations who contribute towards community safety. Accredited Persons (APs) are identified by a standardised badge, and deal with specific nuisances such as dog fouling, cycling on the pavement, and litter."
I am really just too tired and pissed off with this incessant meddling to fisk anything or go into detail about my own professional experience of chief constables, not to mention community safety and its string of failed police officers obsessed with covert surveillance, socialists counting the days down to retirement over sudoku and alcoholic officers leading alcohol test purchasing exercises (maybe another day when you're in need of some dark humour).
Suffice to say, however, giving yet more powers to "employees of organisations who contribute towards community safety" is, in my humble opinion a really, really, bad idea. A long time ago I used to have warrant card, filled with many powers that had been conferred on me, although my job remit was incredibly specific. I used to laugh at the vast array of non-job-specific legislation I was authorised to enforce (The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925, anyone?) but I wonder how readily other people might abuse this readily obtainable, generic authority? Note that the status of organisations who contribute to community safety is not specified. I could list several unsavoury non-statutory organisations in our county that should not be allowed anywhere near statutory powers of any description.
The power to demand someone's name and address for listed offences (which includes truancy I believe) is there, of course. And refusing to comply with an accredited person's requirement is an offence. If today's PCSOs don't know that touching other people's children without permission is seriously bad form, or even that blackberries are safe and edible soft fruits, then I don't fancy the chances of a home educated child (or family) being able to explain the legitimacy of daytime community participation to an over-zealous local authority-or-other-pesky-organisation minion who is slobbering over the opportunity to get their jobsworth or ideological rocks off.
That being said, I note with relish that Blogdial and Longrider are both advocating a little rebellion. Alexander, too, in Saturday's comments. And Grit, in a more refined manner!
Well, what say you?
