Disturbingly, the police now act as though they too are administrators - through their central role in decision making and the equally contrived justifications they give for their actions.Emails released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) reveal a veritable jamboree of such prestidigitatory justifications constructed by the police.
Issued over several weeks this collection contained gripping editions such as 'Investing in Transport', 'Value from the Olympics' and many more.Hidden deep within the one on crime , Johnson stated he would ensure that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras would be used across London to "help identify and track down the vehicles of criminals".Greenhalgh's "consultation" was launched in February 2014 on the 'Talk London' website , which allowed registered users to take part in an exhaustive four question survey containing gems like: "Tf L have around 1400 cameras on major roads in London, collecting vehicle number plate data which is currently used to enforce congestion and low emission zone charges.[...] Do you think the police should or should not have access to data collected by these cameras to help them tackle crime?" You might notice the question doesn't state that most of the data collected will be of vehicles in no way whatsoever connected with crime, as the police use ANPR cameras to capture the details of every passing car, storing this and journey details in a national database for at least two years . Well, doctoral research undertaken by the University of Huddersfield in collaboration with West Yorkshire Police  found that: "although the majority of people indicate awareness of ANPR (i.e.Bibliographies NNDB has added thousands of bibliographies for people, organizations, schools, and general topics, listing more than 50,000 books and 120,000 other kinds of references.
They may be accessed by the "Bibliography" tab at the top of most pages, or via the "Related Topics" box in the sidebar.
Ultimately the best they can do is a total figure surveyed equivalent to 0.69% of the drivers affected by the policy - surely a quorum in anyone's book. In response to a Mayor's Question in 2015  he said: So to summarise, of the 0.001% of Londoners surveyed, almost 8 out of 10 people who mostly thought the police already had access to Tf L's ANPR cameras were in favour of a policy that would allow their somewhat inaccurate view of reality to become more accurate.
That's the headline figure for the consultation report, surely.
In 1945 an Oxford academic pre-empted this part of my article when he wrote : "It may be asked why, if a quasi-judicial process ends only in an exercise of discretion, it is worth while insisting on the strict presentation of rival claims and the proper ascertainment of evidence!
The answer is that a discretion which is demonstrably groundless, or exercised in ignorance or at random, is not, in the eyes of the law, discretion at all, but mere caprice." The desire to present administrative decisions as more than "mere caprice" can be seen in the so-called "consultations" and the contrived justifications administrators use to explain their actions.
But deep within London's back offices administrators, police and transporty people were punching keys on their keyboards, sending emails, having meetings in rooms and generally getting things done, in private, away from the harsh glare of the public eye.