Modern Policing

From the Torygraph:

Police give up the fight as yobs take over

Police have lost control of the streets, the forces' watchdog warns as new figures show that an estimated 14 million incidents of anti-social behaviour take place each year – one every two seconds.

Sir Denis O'Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, says the rowdy and abusive behaviour of yobs is a "disease" within communities that has been allowed to "fester" because police have retreated from the streets in the past two decades.

In a report, he claims that forces have been guilty of chasing crime statistics and targets and ignoring anti-social behaviour or "screening out" 999 calls because it is deemed "not real police work".

I'm starting to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but isn't this what everyone has been saying for years? Go and read the whole thing: it's a revelation. And how's this for a statistic:

Earlier this year, Sir Denis disclosed that just one in 10 police officers was free to tackle crime at any given time because the vast majority were either off work or tied up on other duties.

In fact, that '1 in 10' may be optimistic: Wat Tyler over at BOM calculates that, at half past midnight on a Friday night, as little as 6.4% of the total police strength is available to deal with problems. Of the rest,

... half are permanently deployed on other matters, a further 42% aren't rostered for duty that night, and of those that are, a further 2% are off sick, on holiday, or on restricted duties. Which leaves just 6% available to do the job when we need it done.

What kind of muddle-headed, unfocused, plain stupid way is that to deploy your resources? (And what are the "other matters" that keep the police from doing the job we expect them to do?) It seems the police aren't around when they are needed to keep the streets safe for ordinary people at night, but when it comes to someone being 'offended' by a casual remark by a stranger, a Rapid Response team of trained, heavily-armed officers are instantly available to arrest and question some mild-mannered 45-year-old who happened to say something that sounded a bit like 'Paki'. I'm not condoning racism, by the way; just staggered by the lack of proportion.

~~~ Wavy lines ~~~
Let's go back a few years ...
~~~ Wavy lines ~~~

I can remember a time when crimes were things like burglary, assault, theft - things that actually harm people and make their lives miserable. If you dropped litter in the street, someone - usually a passing stranger - would pick you up on it. If a policeman saw you, he would have words and, if you were young, tell your parents. If you vandalised anything, you would be caught, humiliated, made to put it right, and have a criminal record. If, God forbid, you actually stole something, you would be arrested and probably sent to prison - even for a first offence. Assault, if unprovoked, would get you some gaol-time for certain. (And if you hit someone because they hit you first, the policeman would probably say "he had it coming to him" and say no more about it.)

People were well-behaved in general, for three reasons: one was that getting caught was quite likely; the second was that punishments were certain, and something to be feared; and the third was that a criminal record was something to be avoided at all costs. Having 'previous' would limit you to certain low-grade jobs for the rest of your life and, as a consequence, people made a big effort not to get one. Mainly by not breaking the law.

It was easier to stay within the law in those days as well. There weren't as many to obey. As long as you went about your business without harming anyone, you could pretty much guarantee that you would not break any laws. In other words, anyone with a conscience and reasonable self-control could virtually forget that we even had a legal system. Just get on with your life, don't bother anyone else, and it is likely no-one will bother you. And if they do, the police will be there and the justice system will be entirely on your side.

~~~ Wavy lines ~~~

Not any more. Today, if you catch a burglar who has been threatening your wife and children with a knife and give him a good pasting, it's you that will be on the assault charge. If you object to people parading the streets calling for the murder of all those who don't follow their faith, it's you that is the racist. (Gordon Brown's remark about that "bigoted woman" was sooooooo revealing.) If you make a private remark about someone and it is overheard by someone else - anyone - and that person is offended by what you say, it's you that is up on a hate-crime charge.

And when you really need the police, you just have to hope that the 6.4% of the force available to help you at that time do not decide to classify your cry for help as non-urgent, and therefore meet their targets while you suffer God knows what on your own.

I can't remember the last time I saw a policeman walking along the street, just 'patrolling'. You don't even see many in their cars round here. And yet police on the streets, stopping crime before it happens, is what people actually want. I'm coming round to the idea of locally-elected police chiefs (I can't seriously call them 'sheriffs'), who will ensure that the police force in their areas do what the public want them to do, and not what Whitehall or the police themselves think they should do.

Sir Hugh Orde, the head of ACPO, said last year:

"We must be operationally independent in terms of how we deliver policing. We should not be influenced by anyone who has any potential or suggestion for a political basis."

This is amusing, from the head of a body that has done more to get into bed with the previous Government than seemed possible a few years ago. But what does he mean by "anyone who has the ... suggestion for a political basis"? To me, that means someone who is elected by the local population on a mandate to promote certain priorities. That's what 'political' means. And "operationally independent"? That's code for "we know best".

This is a bit like what we heard when the BNP got a couple of MEPs:

"But the people elected them!"
"Well, the people are wrong!"

Police state?

I'm a bit behind the curve on this, as everyone seems to have done it to death, but I was watching this video clip again today and thought I would mention it here.

It's a young lad, 16 I think, who was trying to take some photos of an army cadet parade when the police tried to stop him. He started recording the incident and has now published it on YouTube. Have a watch of this, and see it through to the end.



Impressions: first up, I feel admiration for the lad in standing up to what can only be described as bullying behaviour by a man in police uniform. He's only 16 - his voice hasn't broken yet, for God's sake - and yet he refuses to be intimidated and sticks to his guns. Second, I am appalled by the attitude of the police here. They are completely in the wrong (it is not illegal to take photographs of police officers or the armed forces, you do not need permission to photograph anyone in a public place even if they are under 18, and he cannot be detained by a police officer unless he is told what law he is alleged to have broken, which the officer repeatedly fails to do). The Met's own publicly-available policy on this is quite clear:

Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.

There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

It looks as thought the guys in Romford missed this particular briefing. If you listen to the police officer's words, he changes tack several times about the reason for preventing the lad taking photographs, and seems to be making the law up as he goes along. The lad is accused, inter alia, of being 'silly', a terrorist, and agitator and a potential paedophile.

And, of course, this isn't an isolated incident. It's happening all the time: Google it. It's as if the Prevention of Terrorism Act has given the police free rein to do as they please - after all, if you object you are a supporter of terrorism, right?

I have always been a firm supporter of the police. They have a difficult and very necessary job to do, and seem to get it right most of the time in tough circumstances. But this kind of thing (and the other bugbear of mine, the relentless pursuit of easy collars while turning a blind eye to the hard stuff) makes me wonder if they are not now beyond democratic control.

I am appalled and very disturbed by what I see here. I will be following Jules Mattsson's case closely. I assume he will be taking this one further. I hope he does.

Householders and burglars

I'm not a violent person. In fact, I don't think I have ever struck anyone in anger in my life. I've had a few bundles when I worked (briefly) as a bouncer, and I once (gently) slapped a woman who had become hysterical. But actually hitting someone with the intent to hurt them - never.

This householder/burglar thing disturbs me, though. If I ever woke up in the night to find someone in the house, or even in the bedroom, I really don't know what I'd do. I used to own a shotgun, and a lot of my neighbours keep theirs under the bed for just this occasion, but I am no Tony Martin and I always kept it well locked away. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the malice to kill someone just for nicking my TV, and the consequences if the gun was taken from me don't bear thinking about.

Equally, I wouldn't say to myself "well, it's only property, and it's not as if it matters in the great scheme of things, so I'll pull the duvet over my head and report it in the morning". I would be frightened and furious - a very dangerous combination in anyone.

I once had advice on this from a policeman, off the record. His advice was to arm yourself, but with something non-lethal. A torch, a big, heavy one, was the best. After all, if you batter an intruder to jam with a baseball bat it starts to look a bit premeditated, especially if, like me, you have no kids on the premises and the last time you played rounders was in primary school. But what jury would ever criticise a householder for carrying a torch while investigating noises in the dark? The advice was to carry it over your shoulder, pointing forward, with a finger on the on/off button. When you find the intruder, switch it on. And while he is temporarily blinded by the light, bring the torch down over your head onto his cranium. You're unlikely to do him permanent harm, but he won't be getting up for a while.

So now I have a heavy Maglite about 15" long under the bed in easy reach, and I know what to do with it. And I would use it, without a doubt. Because I would be afraid, but also very, very angry.



The police (official version) would say that you should not confront the intruder, but call them and let them deal with it. Ha. Bloody. Ha.

• For one thing, the phone lines are easily cut, and there is no mobile signal in the bedroom end of the house
• For another, the nearest neighbour is a good half-mile away
• For yet another, I have lived here 20 years, and have seen the police here four times - three to check on my gun storage arrangements and once to ask if we had seen anything following a break-in to someone's garage. I doubt if the police even know where we are, let alone get here in time to deal with a critical situation
• And for another, if they turned out, and if they found the house, and if they caught the intruder, what would happen? My guess would be nothing.

Luckily, I live in a low-crime area, and the likelihood of being burgled is low. But the thought is always there - what if?

And what if I heard noises in the night and picked up my torch to investigate, and found one of these?

Cold-calling police are to pose as burglars to drive home their safety message. Householders whose homes are an easy target could be woken in the middle of the night by officers trying windows and doors. The initiative, code-named Operation Golden, is being launched in a bid to cut break-ins.

It is being trialled by Cheshire Police, who say residents who fall foul of their checks will be roused with a lecture from officers on what they could have lost.

Assaulting A Police Officer carries a heavy penalty - rightly - and I'm sure I would going daaaahn for a long time.

What is going on? First they were breaking into your car, then giving you your stuff back with a warning. Now they are going to burgle your house and then get you up for a ticking-off. I think I could easily lose my patience at that point.

It's a serious issue, though. In an ideal world (and one I remember being something like it within living memory), we would have a police force that responded to people in distress, and arrested offenders, and a judicial system that put them behind bars to stop them doing it again. Then we could all sleep easy in our beds and there would be no need for torches, or guns, or cricket bats, or vigilante-style activity. But now, I have no confidence that the police would even leave the station for a minor thing like a burglary (too busy prosecuting motorists for eating an apple), and if they did catch anyone the worst they would receive would be a slap on the wrist.

As far as I am concerned, human rights are a two-way street. If you break the law, you remove yourself from the protection of the law. You don't want me to come at you with a heavy implement? Then don't break into my house. Simple.

It reminds me of an old, but relevant, joke. Stop me if you've heard it.

A man wakes in the middle of the night after hearing a noise. He looks out of the window to see two youths in his shed. He phones the police to report the intruders.

"Sorry, Sir, there's no-one available at the moment. You aren't in any danger, so let them get on with it, go back to bed and report it in the morning."

He isn't happy with this, so he goes outside, apprehends them and ties them up with garden twine. He waits a few minutes and then phones the police again.

"It's OK, no need to rush. I've shot them."

Within minutes, the air is full of police helicopters, there are six pursuit vehicles on his drive, police snipers on his roof, and officers in riot gear and bulletproof vests are swarming over his garden.

He calls the senior officer over and points out the youths, tied up and upset, but alive.

"Sir, I thought you said you had shot them."

"And I thought you said you had no-one available!"

A Pleeceman's Lot

Is not a happy one, it would appear:

A newly-promoted police chief has complained that he can no longer do his weekly supermarket shop because it’s ‘too dangerous’. Peter Vaughan, who became head of South Wales police on New Year’s Day, said ‘security considerations’ meant he needed someone else to pick up his groceries.

Now, taking into account this is the Daily Mail speaking, and therefore all scandalous outrage must be scaled back at least 80%, this is not so unreasonable. If the guy now has a much higher public profile, then he's going to get recognised. And being accosted while you are trying to get the groceries in is not always as much fun as it looks. I remember from my teaching days how tiresome it can be to be stopped every few feet by someone wanting to discuss little Johnny's progress while you were trying to choose between the sliced wholemeal and the extra grain harvest loaf. How much worse when the people stopping you want to berate you about crime stats and how their Uncle Reg phoned the police because his rake had gone missing and do you know it took them two hours to get round the house and when they got there it was only a young lad, couldn't have been more than 18, and what do they know, eh? back in may day, police were police, know what I mean, so what you going to do about that then?

No, the guy has my sympathy. Well, he does until he opens his mouth and says this:

Asked for his thoughts on comments made by Miss Wilding [former Chief Constable] that life in the Valleys could be ‘without hope’, Mr Vaughan said: ‘Barbara did a fine job setting the foundations for the force and now I am putting community regeneration at the core of our work.

No, no, no, Mr Vaughan. What you meant to say was: "I am putting preventing crime and catching criminals at the core of our work."

Community regeneration is the job of politicians and social workers. It is not the role of the Police. The Police are there to prevent crime, to catch those responsible for crime, and to keep public order. Nothing else. Making noises about community regeneration makes them sound like the uniformed branch of New Labour. Oh, hang on ...

I know that, given the choice between tackling a gang of burglars and spending the evening in a village hall talking to that nice Mr Patel, I would take the less confrontational option. It's human nature to take the easier and pleasanter path when given the choice. Plus there are probably better doughnuts on offer in the village hall. But then, I am not a policeman, nor am I paid to be a policeman. Policemen are paid, and paid quite well, to deal with difficult situations, often at personal risk to themselves. If you're not happy with that, don't join up.

Which leads me to two questions:

• Since when did the Police have the right to define their role in society, as opposed to their operational priorities? Who told them to become ersatz social workers?
• If the Police are pursuing community regeneration as the "core" of their work, who is out there catching the fucking criminals?