|
COMMUNITY SAFETY and the CRIME & DISORDER ACT
1998 Article by Ken Rogers, Chairman, Wivenhoe Community Safety N.W. Group - October 2003 The Wivenhoe Community Safety N.W. Group has received
two audits from the previous Colchester Borough Community Safety Officer.
The results were excellent as the strategies met with full approval. The Wivenhoe Community Safety N.W. Group aims and
objectives are on the Wivenhoe Town Council web site (www.wivenhoe.gov.uk)
These conform and are within the framework of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998. CRIME and DISORDER ACT 1998 Following a detailed report by MORGAN that was put together after considerable research in the eighties, government then instituted the Crime and Disorder Act. This act was published on 2nd December 1997. The Bill itself was preceded by a number of Home Office consultation documents (in which I took a minor role). The Crime and Disorder Act received Royal Assent in July 1998. This Bill is provided to build a safer communities and a more responsible society. The various measures in this Bill are being implemented at various stages. Areas that are of interest to Wivenhoe are Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, child curfew orders, there are many others that emphasis the requirement for ‘crime prevention.’ To date, to my knowledge, warnings have been given. I am pleased to say those receiving the warnings from the police appear not to have re-offended. The Crime and Disorder Act provides the requirement for partnerships between the police, probation, local authorities, health authorities and other agencies. This includes locally targeted and data based strategies that are agreed with the communities. It is important to note that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for the first time placed the coordination of community safety and crime prevention on a statutory basis. Section 5 of the Act makes local authorities and chief police officers the ‘responsible authorities’ for setting and implementing strategies aimed at achieving reductions in crime. This legislation ended the traditional police monopoly of responsibility for control of crime within the local authority areas. Such responsibility should now be shared. I would argue that there is a gradual local political control of operational policing in parts of the U.K. The active citizen will need to deal with risks of crime in active participation this is ultimately necessary to enable the citizen to confront risk and their consequences There are professionals who believe this quashes their ability to deliver the service. (Giddens) I have always treated the Crime and Disorder Act as a
form of risk management. Taking action to prevent any person(s) being at
risk. COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS Local community safety partnerships have encouraged
the involvement of private and voluntary sector interest. These
partnerships, spawned by the Crime and Disorder Act, encourages and
entrench a service at local level. This
facilitates networks across and between the public, voluntary and private
sectors. The emphasis upon locally grounded problem solving methodologies
has persuaded new players to enter the field. The police have not always
responded to this chain of events with enthusiasm. The reasons given have
been there are already to many agencies to deal with. This has created
forms of resentment and loss of communication between the police and
various areas of the community. It is understandable that the police feel
‘bogged down’ with ever increasing legislation plus considerable
bureaucracy. However it is important that the police examine all agencies
to establish where a workable partnership can materialise providing safer
communities. There is a
statutory requirement that local partnerships are formed in order to place
crime deduction and community safety plans in place. Ken Rogers |