The Independent has an interview with Sir Stephen Lander, Chairman of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and former Director General of the Security Service MI5.
The interview did not ask the question "approximately, to the nearest
£20 billion, how much does Serious and Organised Crime cost the UK annually ? £20 billion or £40 billion ?", but it does, somehow, magically assert that:
"Organised crime is estimated to have a £15bn a year turnover."
Sir Stephen did reveal something of interest to Home Office kremlinologists:
"The priorities that are adopted by Britain's elite crime fighting force will be partly based upon the number of column inches newspapers give to different types of organised criminality, Sir Stephen disclosed.
Researchers at the Home Office have looked at about 30 newspapers, divided equally among broadsheet and compact newspapers, the tabloids, and the regional press, over the past five years. They have calculated which organised crime issues are the most pressing by measuring the column inches and number of stories devoted to each subject. Organised immigration crime came first, followed by drugs.
Sir Stephen explained: "The brainboxes in the Home Office have been putting together a sort of harm model."
"brainboxes in the Home Office" - your words, not ours, Sir Stephen.
"The model basically articulates the harm that is caused to the UK under a number of headings - the rewards taken and made by the criminal; the social and economical harm to the UK; the institutional harm - corruption for example and illegal immigration - and tries to put a cost [on them].
"It also brings into play judgements about the degree of public concern and they have a proxy for this, which is the amount of column inches in the press. Which is not quite right, but is probably as good as you will get. It is pretty rough and ready but it is asking the right questions. It is asking not, what is the incidence of something, but what is its impact."
So what happened to the British Crime Survey and even focus groups ? Surely these are at least as valid a methodology as measuring column inches in only 30 newspapers, owned by probably not more than five major media proprieters ? What about radio. television and the internet ?
"One of the priorities of the harm model is a better understanding of the problems."
He continued: "The first of the cracks of the methodology suggests that we need to do more on people-smuggling and people-trafficking."
So does this mean that because newspapers are obsessed with immigration issues that Soca will be giving people smugglers and traffickers more attention than it would otherwise? Sir Stephen replied: "Illegal immigration stories in the media are much the most frequent - they reflect a newspaper's policy line on a subject and they also reflect genuine anxiety."
What about the "climate of fear" hype and spin feedback loop ? The Home Office and Labour party spin doctors leak, brief, spin, send out press releases to target those 30 newspapers, which are then used by another part of the Home Office as the input to their "harm model" !
"People-smuggling has been growing across Europe and the UK is seen as very attractive location. The best estimates are that 95 per cent of the illegal immigrants who get here are paying someone to facilitate them, so it is a real money earner. It is a lower risk than drugs. It does have an impact that has been growing over the past 10 years."
He did, however, concede: "There is certainly a level of hype in some of the media coverage but nevertheless there is substantial money made at the expense of the UK and taken out of communities from poor countries."
Ministers will set the overall priorities of Soca, which in turn draw on the "harm model".
That is political harm if you have sloganised your policies as "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".
"But is it right that politicians should have such an influence in the way crime is tackled - why not leave it to the professionals? He argued: "You can't disentangle the political imperatives. If ministers want to have something slightly more important than something else then that is their political judgement.
"They run the country, I don't - it's their judgement that counts. It is a real problem [illegal immigration] - this has weight this problem, the degree of weight you attach to responding to this has to have an element of political judgement about it."
"For a national agency, of course it is going to be political, what else is it going to be?""
Why are the Home Office Civil Servants being employed to do political intelligence gathering at tax payers' expense ?
Yet the Home Office seems to be happy to ignore actual formal public consultations and even detailed reports from the House of Commons Committees on Home Affairs, Human Rights, Public Accounts etc.
that story you pointed out is quite frankly unbelievable. I find it so unreal and so astonishing that i'm have expecting the Ministry of Silly Walks to be reopened in WhiteHall.
So, if Soca are taking their lead and priorities this way (what happened to raw police intelligence?) , one can extrapolate that attitude to higher up the chain. Are MI5 and MI6 doing the same thing? Taking their priorities from the Sun and Daily Star??? It beggars belief.
What do you find incredible ? The politicisation of the Civil Service ?
Perhaps Sir Stephen Lander is conducting his own subtle public criticism of the "brainboxes in the Home Office" and their New Labour political masters.
John Lettice has some more analysis of Sir Stephen Lander's interview with The Independent in The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/11/lander_harm_model/
I find it interesting to watch SOCA develop but I seriously question some of the things going on within the newly formed organisation. VEREDUS were employed at substantial cost to recruit the best of the best. Was it not therefore a complete waste of public money when all they did was promote the senior managers from existing organisations into key roles. The were unable to perform well in the past, badging them under a new name and paying them more money is not going to make that much more of a difference. It is more like nepotism than new and exciting.
Admittedly they have recruited some ACPO rank from a particularly large police force. One of them was recently encouraged to retire, not through age but more that he was a liability for the organisation. His references will not show that on the basis that they are clapping their hands with glee that he is going.
SOCA has all the hallmarks of being a disaster but it will be advertised as a success because the government wants it to work. If they had tackled the corrupt practices from within when the orgainsation was being developed then perhaps it would have some credence. However currently it is turning into a joke.
We mentioned Veredus and the fact that two of the people on the committee writing the job specifications for the bosses of SOCA, somehow magically ended up being hired to fill those positions. One may well ask what Veredus actually did to justify their fee.
See:
August 27, 2004
Serious Organised Crime Agency appointments
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2004/08/serious_organis_1.html
This presently taxes Thames House .....
http://www.theregister.com/2007/06/18/us_china_export_rules_online/
In reply to the above, I thought of the following, which is going to market. A PreView allows for all possible Options to be covered including the option of ITs Military Controls.
ur Move Next?
Posted Monday 18th June 2007 19:42 GMT
"*Be especially wary if you're into near-real-time apps."
Aye aye, Cap'n.
And for those into NeuReal Time Operations? Virtualisation for Real.......in an Astute NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive Driver Program.
An Investor's Dream Ticket.:-) ...... for the Brave with Wisdom.
IT is difficult not to conclude that IT is AI Big Brother Control which is QuITe Real, if somewhat SurReal at the Control Interface. IT is as well to be Aware that such a Feeling is Natural.
IT is what CyberIntelAIgent Global Operating Devices Use Live.
Which takes us into the Enigma and Turing Machines........ Artificial Intelligence Conversing which is Really only ViVid Imagination. However, having Shared IT gives it Life?
The premise is that there should be, under a Military Intelligence command, a CyberSpace Security Program to Mentor and Monitor and Repair/Rebuild Failed Civilian Intelligence Efforts.
A Helping Hand for their Hearts and Minds. Simply a Complex Logistical Exercise in InterNetworking of Resources.