Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

Scenario risks increasing pressure on law enforcement.

 

Date - 28th November 2018
By - Hayden Smith and Ian Weinfass

 

The UK will lose access to EU databases used by police to track terrorists and criminals in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to an official analysis.

The paper provides the most detailed government assessment to date of the potential impact on security and law enforcement ties if no agreement is struck.

Agencies would no longer be plugged in to systems for exchanging a raft of data including criminal records, alerts on wanted suspects, DNA, fingerprints and airline passenger information.

Extradition requests would take longer, while cooperation on counter-terrorism, cyber security and illegal migration would be affected.

The assessment, published by the Department for Exiting the European Union, said: "A no deal scenario would not provide the same levels of capabilities envisaged in the deal scenario - many of which would require formal agreements with the EU - and would risk increasing pressure on UK security, law enforcement and judicial authorities.

"In the event of no deal, the UK would no longer have any access to EU data platforms, or have guaranteed channels for obtaining law enforcement information."

If an agreement is not reached, there will be no implementation period after the UK formally departs the bloc in March.

The paper said: "This means that any operational cooperation that relies on EU tools and instruments at the point of exit, would stop.

"This would create immediate legal and operational uncertainty with the risk of operational disruption and potential security implications."

Under the terms of the draft agreement, the two sides have committed to establishing a "broad" and "comprehensive" security partnership.

But in a no deal scenario, Britain would face losing access to:

• A scheme for sharing air passenger data such as names, travel dates and contact details
• The Prum system, which facilitates fast exchange of DNA and fingerprint data
• The Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), which circulates millions of law enforcement alerts in real time
• The European Criminal Record Information System, which enables automated exchange of criminal record data

The assessment also flagged up the potential impact on cooperation in a number of "thematic areas".

On efforts to counter terror and violent extremism, it said: "In a no deal scenario, it would be harder for the UK and the EU to work strategically to tackle these evolving threats."

Effective action on illegal migration would be more difficult with no formal arrangements in place, the paper added.

It made clear the government would seek to "mitigate the effects of a no deal scenario on the UK's security".

In a "deal scenario", operational cooperation will continue largely as it does now during the implementation period, the analysis said.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who chairs the Commons Home Affairs Committee, said: "This assessment makes clear the substantial security risks from no deal, but it does absolutely nothing to tell us what the security risks are in the Prime Minister's deal. This isn't being honest with everyone."

Liberal Democrat Ed Davey said: “Theresa May keeps telling us she’ll work out a wonderful new security agreement before the transition period ends, but she has completely failed to make any progress whatsoever over the last two years.

“The Liberal Democrats demand better for our police and our communities. That’s why we are fighting to give the people the final say on the deal, including the option to exit from Brexit.”

View On Police Oracle

[Fedster + 1,307]

Project fear?

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

Sure we will lose alot of information about people's movement through Europe. However. Anyone crossing the border from Europe to the UK will be recorded as the current free movement system ends anyhow, this will include their purposes for visiting the UK and business conducted here.

[Mac7 808]

Project fear?

The “deal” that May has negotiated means that the EU can have access to our systems, data, intelligence etc but we cannot have access to theirs. Good deal?

[Radman + 2,163]

On 28/11/2018 at 20:23, Mac7 said:

 

 

The “deal” that May has negotiated means that the EU can have access to our systems, data, intelligence etc but we cannot have access to theirs. Good deal?

 

 

Well it's high time we implement a real border security force, legislating massive corporations to pay into the pot just as TOCs pay for specialised policing now (BTP.)

Why do we have port authorities earning literally tens of millions of pounds in profits yet do not pay into a policing pot to protect their ports and coastline? It's frankly crazy... The industry was privatised, it's about time that industry just like others contribute to the effective policing of their areas.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Radman

[Beaker 817]

Well it's high time we implement a real border security force, legislating massive corporations to pay into the pot just as TOCs pay for specialised policing now (BTP.)
Why do we have port authorities earning literally tens of millions of pounds in profits yet do not pay into a policing pot to protect their ports and coastline? It's frankly crazy... The industry was privatised, it's about time that industry just like others contribute to the effective policing of their areas.

Give it to BTP and make the port companies stump up some cash? It is transport infrastructure after all.

[Reasonable Man + 1,230]

Well it's high time we implement a real border security force, legislating massive corporations to pay into the pot just as TOCs pay for specialised policing now (BTP.)
Why do we have port authorities earning literally tens of millions of pounds in profits yet do not pay into a policing pot to protect their ports and coastline? It's frankly crazy... The industry was privatised, it's about time that industry just like others contribute to the effective policing of their areas.

Do they not pay their share in the form of taxation?
By that argument all retail outlets should pay into a pot to police shoplifting, financial institutions should put in for policing fraud, private car parks for vehicle crime etc.

[Radman + 2,163]

27 minutes ago, Beaker said:

35 minutes ago, Radman said:

Well it's high time we implement a real border security force, legislating massive corporations to pay into the pot just as TOCs pay for specialised policing now (BTP.)
Why do we have port authorities earning literally tens of millions of pounds in profits yet do not pay into a policing pot to protect their ports and coastline? It's frankly crazy... The industry was privatised, it's about time that industry just like others contribute to the effective policing of their areas.

Give it to BTP and make the port companies stump up some cash? It is transport infrastructure after all.

We used to police alot of ports before privatisation kicked in - there isn't the appetite in BTP at a senior level in my experience to push for 'more' or a return to how things once were (such as ports and other areas like the wider TfL remit.)

Frankly the money should either go to a reorganised more police enforcement focused border force OR local Constabularies who can provide their own marine support teams.

[Radman + 2,163]

38 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

Do they not pay their share in the form of taxation?
By that argument all retail outlets should pay into a pot to police shoplifting, financial institutions should put in for policing fraud, private car parks for vehicle crime etc.

The ports are actually governed by the DfT/Government much like the train operating companies - like the railways it's privitisation lite.

If these companies are operating ports of entry into the UK that require a substantial amount of policing the industry should pay into a policing pot just as TOCs do - it makes much more sense to have that form of policing especially given the unique nature of the area being policed and the huge impact on national security such ports of entries pose... That OR simply make it legally binding that all Medium to Large sized ports implement their own Constabularies to boost security as they are already legally empowered to do... 

ABP as an example is one of the largest port owners in the UK making many millions in profit with some very busy, very large ports and they neither pay into a policing pot nor employ their own constables at any of their national locations... Yet many of their ports were criticised as being vulnerable in a recent report... Why doesn't central government look at what's already available and in place and what can be done.

It doesn't make sense to me that the pressure isn't pushed back onto the industry.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Radman