Friday, March 31, 2006

Victims Code of Practice

This comes into effect very soon, and you can view it here

What it means, in effect, is that anyone who has made an allegation of being directly subjected to criminal conduct, is legally obliged to a minimum standard of service when having their investigation deal with. It doesn't matter if the police think the allegation is a pile of crap, or that noone has been charged or convicted of an offence relating to the conduct, the victim still get the same services.

I'll focus on the part relevant to the police. Wherever I say x working days, substitute that with one working day for vulnerable/intimidated witnesses.

First off, if we decide there is to be no investigation, we must inform the victim within five working days; tell them we are referring them to Victim Support unless they ask us not to and must provide victim details to the local VSG no later than two working days after the allegation.

During investigations, we must provide victims with periodical monthly updates. For serious ones, if we don't charge anyone we have to tell the victim why.

If someone is arrested, we must inform the victim within five working days. If they are released NFA (no further action), we must notify the victim and give them the reasons for this within five working days.

If the suspect is on police bail, we must inform the victim of this, the reasons for bail and any bail conditions, within five working days. Any changes or cancellation to bail must also be communicated.

If a suspect is either interviewed or reported, we must notify the victim of this, and the fact that a file will be submitted for a decision on prosecution or summons. This must be within three working days.

A decision whether or not to prosecute must be communicated, within five working days, and if a decision is made not to prosecute, that must be communicated by the party who made that decision (be it police or CPS), with the reasons why. If a suspect is charged or not, we must communicate this to the victim within five working days.

We must communicate details of any bail to appear in court, conditions and the date of appearance, and any subsequent variation in bail conditions, including details of the variation and actions the victim can take if a breach of bail occures.

If we are applying for a remand in custody we must inform the victim, and must also inform them as to whether or not this is successful, and if unsuccessful inform the victim of the usual bail information as described above.

Finally, we must inform the victim of any other means of disposal (ie a caution, fixed penalty notice or reprimand/final warning) and whether or not a summons has been issued, along with their next appearance date.


In anticipation of this, I'm working on a Word template! I plan to mailmerge the victim's name and address in, and then copy and paste a selection of pre-written paragraphs that convey the necessary progress/update information in, then fill in the blanks as regards dates and times. This way I won't need to keep typing out the same letter, or variations of that letter, for the 15 victims of the 15 crimes I am simultaenously investigating at the moment, and can get the update stuff done pretty quickly, meeting the statutory deadlines easily and effectively. If computers didn't exist and they introduced this system I would resign.

I'll start asking victims of crime for e-mail address, and inviting them to start Gmail accounts if they haven't got one! It could be a problem for some of my customers, though, as the only computers they know are the one that process the sale for their crates of Stella.

Some may argue that we should always do this for all our crimes as a matter of course anyway. Simple fact is that I don't, and I doubt many other officers do as a matter of course, unless it's particularly important that I notify the victim of a particular aspect of the investigation. I certainly wouldn't have dreamt of updating each and every victim on a regular basis as to how my investigation is coming along, especially as the non-urgent ones have been put on the back burner whilst the crimes which have a statutory time limit for investigation are prioritised.

Most of my letters would look like this:

"Dear Sir,

In April's Edition of Bow Street Runner Update, I am sad to say that the status of your crime remains the same as it did last month - enquiries ongoing. This is because I am struggling to ensure that the ones that are more likely to result in a straightforward detection are boxed off before the end of March, so that our area can meet the detections target for the financial year.

I'm not ignoring your crime, it's just that it isn't likely to add to our detection level if I prioritise it, and I get a tick in the box if I advance others. Terribly sorry old bean!"

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Plain clothes!!

Brilliant! I'm currently on a plain clothes operation and will continue to be for several weeks.

Plain clothes shifts are the envy of those in uniform because:

1. You have a specific remit
2. You don't have to do anything outside that remit - if the jobs coming in aren't part of your remit/op, you can quite happily ignore them
3. You can back up to jobs and not do any paperwork (unless you lock up, but if you're sensible 'backup' does NOT involve 'lockup')
4. You don't get nagged for directions, the time, photos or requests to wear items of clothing and uniform
5. You can follow people, watch them severely incriminate themselves then take delight in the look of abject horror on their faces when you identify yourself
6. You can sit in a nice warm cafe on a freezing cold day, drinking coffee and eating hot food whilst 'obbing' out a location.

Right now our remit is street robberies. Last week it was burglaries, and the week before that it was theft from motor vehicles. It changes depending on whatever crime-related word appears on the bosses 'Word Of The Day' toilet paper at the start of each week.

"God, that's a good word - lets focus on that reducing that type of crime for the next seven days!"

Unfortunately it can sometimes backfire. Last week we tried to arrest someone who was wanted, he decided to try and bolt when we identified ourselves, and four of us ended up grappling with him to the floor in a crowded shopping area. A well-meaning Member Of the Public phoned it in, and the next thing we know, comms are asking for patrols to urgently attend a street robbery in progress, 4-on-1!

Of all the jobs the public don't phone in, they'd have to go and phone in the one with the plain clothes bobbies jumping on a suspect wouldn't they?!?!!

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Monday, March 27, 2006


Was e-mailed this web site by a reader, and am having a look through it at the moment, currently watching the 'Police State 2000' video.

Have a read through and draw your own conclusions. Unfortunately I'm quite boring and prefer arguments like those presented on this site to be presented in a dispassionate, academic manner, so that I can make my own mind up, so it'll take a while before I decide whether or not I agree with the viewpoints proffered on this site.

Have to admit I tire very easily of any theory that uses the rhetorical mechanism of comparison in such a way that it compares the subject of its argument with that of the Nazis, but if the rest of it can stand up without reliance on such comparisons then I'll forgive them!

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

What really grinds my gears... when people like to boast of connections, real or otherwise, to gangsters.

"You can't do this to me" (usually aimed at door staff or people they've had a disagreement with) "I know Mr. xxxxxxxxx you know, and we're gonna sort you!"


"I've got friends y'know. I work for Mr. xxxxxxx"

The implication here is that this person is "connected" and can therefore summon, on a whim, an army of tooled-up thugs who, oblivious to the laws of this land, will mete out 'justice' against those who have dared offend or inconvenience the acquaintance of this "Mr. Big". The reality is that the person will repeat their alleged connection over and over until they get bored, then will finally go home.

Big whoop - I know Mr. xxxxxx too - I've stopped him whilst he was driving and gave him a producer. So that makes two of us. And I've got friends too, so what's your point?

Furthermore, are these people really that incapable of taking control of their own lives that they have to start name-dropping in an attempt to resolve a situation?

What do they expect to happen? "Oh, terribly sorry sir, you WERE fighting in the club and took someone's eye out with a broken bottle, but since you're an acquaintance of Mr. xxxxxxx then that makes all the difference. Why didn't you mention that before? Please, come on in and help yourself to complimentary drinks, free women and start as many fights as you can handle."

The days of gangsters running the doors or, in some parts of the country, those who were turned away returning with guns/knives/chains and having a big ol' brawl are long gone, and such things only happen very rarely now. So when someone starts up with the "connections" argument to try and justify a course of action or determine a series of events, I just yawn, say "Of course you do" and carry on with exactly what I was doing before, which is usually trying to get people some distance from each to make life easier for myself.

Have to admit I'm curious as to what those who say that they 'work' for a Mr. Big would put down as their job title. "Car Acquisition Executive" (car thief)? "Opposition Concilliation Manager" (beats up rival gang 'employees')? Maybe they're 'employed' as "Revenue Income Security Officer" (extortionist) or "Leisure Substance Merchandise Vendor" (drug dealer)? Any more ideas or suggestions are welcome!

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.
Court Guide Part 2 - actually in the courtoom

Very occasionally, sitting around in the waiting area for hours, dying of boredom, actually results in an officer having to take the stand and testify. This helps counter the widely-held conspiracy theory that the CPS conspire with the defendants to call officers in on rest days at 9.45am and keep them there for hours, at which point the defendants, acting on some sort of secret signal, plead guilty 4 hours later, making the officer's attendance a singular waste of time.

So, here's a few do's and don'ts for those who actually end up testifying:


Face the bench when answering questions - specifically, the people on the bench rather than the physical bench itself

Address the magistrates as "Your Worship" and not "Your Majesty" as has allegedly happened once

Answer the question exactly as stated - nothing more, nothing less

Speak slowly and clearly - the court clerk has to note your answers and often can't write as quickly as you speak!

Refer to your Pocket Note Book if you feel it necessary. Also ask to see your statement before you go in the court as well.


Look at the lawyer when answering questions - the lawyer is addressing the questions to you through the court, so you should direct your answers to him accordingly

Elaborate on answers - answer what is required. The more you say, the more material you're giving the defence to cross-examine you with

Laugh at stupid questions - you'll then be asked what's so funny and risk saying "Your Worship, I was laughing the the defence's pathetic attempt to make out that the defendant did not see me or my colleagues in spite of us being 3 feet away from him in yellow conspicuity jackets and Custodian helmets on a well-lit street at night", which doesn't sound good!

Care enough about the case to start trying to do the prosecution lawyers work - it's their job to prosecute the case, and your role is just to answer the questions and cross-examinations. If they win, great, if not, it's not your fault (generally). You've done your bit!

Start launching into tirades about how heinous the crime is and/or your belief that the defendant and their ilk should be strung up 'cos it's the only language them bleedin' bastards understand.

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Saturday, March 18, 2006


We receive hours of 'diversity' training to ensure that we don't use prejudice when doing our job, but like it or not, it still comes into play and we couldn't do the job properly without it.

The scenario: You are working on an anti-robbery operation in an area that's being hammered for violent street robberies. The main offender profile is either white or black males, on their own, wearing dark tracksuit tops and bottoms; hoodies which are up and often carry draw-string bags.

You see four men near a bus stop which had two street robberies over the weekend. There's a Section 60 in place in the area (blanket power of search in anticipation of violence for weapons and dangerous items) and you're under pressure to get results. Who do you turn over (search)?

1. The young Chinese man in casuals waiting for the Number 122
2. The young black male in dark tracksuit tops and bottoms, hoodied up and loitering by the bus stop eyeing people up as they go past.
3. The young mixed-race male in a group of six, all wearing school uniforms, loitering around the bus stop. You can see a couple have HMV carrier bags.
4. The young white male, in dark tracksuit, hoodied up and looking very furtive.

Can you guess who it is yet?

Most officers would search either either the young black male, the young white male or both, and it should be both. The fact that the males are black and white respectively, thus matching the main offender profile, is largely irrelevant. Race doesn't come into it.

The important part here is clothing - that they're wearing tracksuits and hoodies, which are up. Simply put, people wearing this combination are far more likely to have police attention and suspicion drawn to them. Yes, it's prejudiced, yes, it's stereotyping, but it matches the offender profile, and experience shows that people wearing these types of clothes in these areas are responsible for more crime than those wearing business suits, casuals or school uniforms.

These two males may have done nothing at all, or they may be prolific street robbers, having just committed or are just about to commit a robbery, or may even be wanted for a previous one. They are in an area of high crime, matching the offender profile, on their own and are looking and acting suspiciously. People wearing hoodies which are up do so either because it's cold/wet, or they're trying to hide their identity from CCTV. People wear dark tracksuits because it 'anonymises' them, insofar as the description circulated is 'male, around 5"10 in height, wearing dark tracksuit clothing and a hood' which, in certain areas, will make them impossible to discern from others wearing exactly the same.

Of the hundreds of people I have stopped wearing this selection of apparel, I can honestly count on two hands the amount of people who have NEVER been in trouble with the police before. It therefore goes to show that our action based on prejudice is founded on good logic and reasoning, even if it does discriminate against people based on what they wear. If I were to truly embrace diversity, I would either search everyone at that bus stop, on the grounds that clothing doesn't matter and any one of them may be responsible for street robberies, or none of them, on the grounds that they've not doing anything wrong right now and I can't assume that males dressed in a particular way are automatically more likely to be responsible for criminal activity than others.

Personally, I'll take the risk of a discrimination complaint by either male and search them - they'd complain far more loudly if I, like some officers, are too scared of offending diversity to do the job properly, and they ended up getting robbed themselves.

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Musings of a 'discontented rozzer'

Added a couple of more blog links.

According to Terence Blacker (article pointed out by Lights, sirens....action!), other police bloggers and I are just a bunch of 'discontented rozzers' moaning about our jobs with nothing positive to say. That's if we're even police officers. And apparently we can't take criticism.

I've not actually been criticised as a blogger yet, so will take this criticism of bloggers unable to take criticism as a general criticism which includes this blog. Mr. Blacker has a point about us moaning about our jobs - there generally isn't much good about it, and the achievements and positives can be read about in the press releases on force official websites. Negative stuff is not published officially, and is what a lot of people like to read about anyway, so there's a market for whinging about the job in a public fashion!

As for not being a police officer - well if I'm not, I'm either have frightening intuition or I've submitted a lot of Freedom of Information requests. Make of my legitimacy what you will.

As for taking criticism - I thank Mr. Blacker, not only for providing us police bloggers with further publicity, but also for offering an alternative point of view from someone who actually writes for a living. I shall endeavour to, where appropriate, include positive elements of the job. If, however, positives of the job are a prerequisite for posting, then I feel this blog would be far smaller in content and have a far smaller readership amongst both police officers and members of the public alike, in the same way that newspapers that print only good news have a far lower circulation rate than those which do not. Indeed, is not Mr. Blacker's article of a particularly negative tone?

Now for a quick positive story:

A while back I locked up a lad for going equipped. From start to finish, including arrest; transport to custody; process; interview; CPS advice and charge, it took 6 hours - far quicker than I've ever seen similar arrests go through before. Better still, the CPS took just 5 minutes to come to a charge decision. I'd like to think it was my superb file-preparation skills, but the more likely reality is that, without going into detail, the case was so self-evident that they could not have arrived at any other conclusion.

A tip for serving police officers - when using CPS Direct (out of hours CPS advice), type as much of your paperwork up as you can, as opposed to handwriting it, then e-mail it over to them when prompted on the phone. I was advised to do this by a solicitor, who said that when we fax it through they have to copy-type everything anyway, so it shaves at least half an hour off the consultation time if we e-mail it ready-typed. What is normally a 1 hour + phone call to CPS lasted 35 minutes, so I was well chuffed.

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.
Actually I forgot...

In my previous post I said patrol time wasn't audited. A non mouse pointed out that in some forces it is, and it reminded me that we recently had an auditing exercise in place whereby we write down what we've been up to for every 15 minutes of a shift - Activity Based Costing or something like that. Problem was, they never bothered delivering the forms to us so we couldn't do it, and nobody actually seemed that fussed when we never submitted anything, hence why it was soon forgotten! Mine would have read "handover paperwork" for most of them anyway.

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

"PI Blues"

Now this isn't empirical, but I'm increasingly of the view that, in an age where everything needs to be audited, patrol is no longer a 'cost effective' use of police time.

Why? Because unless you do Stop Accounts/Searches, HORT/1s, fixed penalties etc., time spent on patrol is not able to be audited and translated into pretty pie charts and graphs which make good headlines. How can we expect our bosses to sit there in front of Statistics and Auditing with the majority of officer's time spent on "Other" - ie patrolling? That's not going to make for good report reading! Maybe they'll ask us to audit how much crime we think we have prevented by patrolling? Oooh I could have some fun with that!

"Yessir, by driving down this particularly dodgy side road, I singlehandedly prevented a murder and a mugging. When I drove past the shopping centre I thwarted a terrorist attack from being carried out. Can I have a promotion now? I did save the area, after all."

For those who don't know, some forces have Key Performance Indicators, or PIs, that each officer is expected to hit. Things like Response times; number of arrests per month; pieces of process (Stop Accounts, producers, tax disc reporting thingies) etc. I don't know if I have any, and I don't really care, although I hear if we apply for a transfer to another department, whether or not we meet PIs is something taken into account. I suppose it's the same for most other things in the public and private sector. Work a Friday or Saturday night and you'll satisfy your arrest criteria for the month anyhow.

Since I don't care I'm in no rush to meet or exceed these targets - we don't get commission or a bonus from doing so (we should be so lucky) and worrying about them would just be added pressure on top of our crime queue, court appearances and ensuring we're adhering to the language in the latest diversity booklet when engaging in thought processes. Some officers do, and that's their perogative. I joined up to deter and deal with criminals, not to stick cars for out of date tax so I get a tick in the box. This is either the 'correct' attitude to have or the 'incorrect' attitude, depending on your viewpoint. Answers on a postcard please.

Conversely, some areas and forces have 'divisional targets', for certain kinds of crime. So, for example, a busy city centre might be given a target of, say, 8 burglaries per month (there's no target for shoplifters in city centres, go figure), whilst a large rural area may have, say, 2 or 3 burglaries, with an urban area having a much higher burglary target of around 20 (more houses, derrr!). I'm making these figures up by the way according to what would be logical, so the real figures are probably completely different.

If more than this targetted number occur, bosses jump up and down and everyone is pressured to drop what they're doing and sort it out, even though it's after the fact. For bosses, they're usually happy with known offenders for this sort of crime being locked up or just something auditable to show we're actively tackling this type of crime. Problem here is the 'known offenders' have to actually be wanted for an offence or have a warrant! We can't just collar them and say "You're under arrest for making our crime figures look bad" and caution them. Even if we do have good reason to lock them up, they'll be out within a couple of days unless they have a warrant for failing to appear, or have committed offences on bail.

I'm not actually sure what happens if we keep below the crime targets, maybe a bottle of champagne is opened somewhere or something. In practical terms, it makes no difference to members of the public, and for frontline police it's a measure of how much we're going to have people breathing down our necks. Maybe the targets are supposed to motivate us to keep crime low. Personally I thought the oath of allegiance was a pretty good motivator for that one.

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.
"Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!"

It seems like my blog and several others have drawn some attention in the media - link is here: and here

Thanks to the BBC and Platinax for the free publicity, though I'd imagine this may be the catalyst for releasing the bloodhounds on our respective blogs.

A couple of people who have posted comments have mentioned that posting about police operations and specific incidents/people is Not A Good Thing. And, to be fair, I completely agree.

Posts about specific incidents and people would potentially compromise identity, and is also unfair on those people I'm posting about, so I tend, and intend, to post about 'composites' of jobs, as they're usually posted to make a point rather than for the sake of being an entertaining read in their own right - there's plenty of other places and books with entertaining jobs in them. And I post about certain types of people generally, aka drunks in my earliest post about door staff, rather than individuals.

As for police operations - well, you can read about most of the juicy ones on official force websites and in the press, with the rest far too boring to be worth writing about! If you really want to read about a join Council/Police initiative to combat litter... Just because it has the word 'Operation' in front of a random word doesn't automatically mean it involves people in riot gear smashing down doors - that's only on special occasions!
Let me give you a general guidance about police operations generally though:

1. They all involve operational orders - a big long document which reads like a corporate project presentation. They include words like Background, Methods, Intention etc. and sections such as 'Risk Assessments' - which are copied from the last operational order as the risks are usually exactly the same. They're read out in the briefing by an extremely bored operation leader who has probably memorised large parts of the standard proforma stuff through repitition. We are always told to be vigiliant for terrorist alerts, just in case we forget.

2. The majority involve 'hi visibility re-assurance patrol' - so really, it's just bimbling about as per normal when we haven't got 15-20 crmes on the go, but in a certain area and usually on foot with a big official document behind us to justify it. Thus it's an 'Operation' and sounds much more exciting. After the July bombings I was on an 'Operation' which involved walking around in a yellow coat being alert for dodgy things and people. Some called it an 'Operation', I preferred to refer to it, with teary-eyed nostalgia, as the long-forgotten concept of 'patrolling'.

3. There's usually, but not always, overtime available, so even if it's standing on a traffic point for 6 hours in the freezing cold, there'll always be someone up for doing it!

4. They look far more interesting when written up in the press than when you actually do them!

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Thursday, March 09, 2006


I've noticed lately the people have started cottoning on to how we work, so are using loaded words and phrases when they phone us or make allegations, knowing full well that as individual officer discretion is well and truly dead, we are obliged to act and do things in a certain way.

Methods of guaranteeing faster callouts include phoning in domestics and 'inflating' the nature of the domestic, resulting in a loud verbal disagreement over finance between partners (perfectly normal and healthy too, I might add) forming the basis of a log headed "Violent domestic - woman heard screaming for mercy, lots of loud noise and blood spattering on windows intermittently. Caller states 45 young children live at the address". This will result in patrols being diverted away from going to the hospital to obtain a statement from someone who has just been viciously assaulted, so that the reporting neighbour can get a faster response, and thus a good night's sleep.

Another one is "caller states he has seen a firearm" - this will get everyone on the radio channel to prick their ears up and listen intently, making the general area if they can. These calls are prioritised as the highest possible so will almost guarantee an instant response. If you're thinking of doing this on a whim though, expect a major bollocking, an £80 fine for wasting police time and armed police swarming your area - so in a word, don't say there's a firearm unless there is one!

Finally, there's the age old "massive enormous riot with 2000 people throwing molotov cocktails at each other" - subtract 1998 people, the molotv cocktails and substitute riot with "shoving" and you get the actual job, which is only realised after the world and his wife have been diverted from whatever they were doing to attend.

Then, when it comes to investigations, include the words "hate", "racist", "homophobic" and whatever the latest fashionable anti-prejudice word is of the day, and you'll be guaranteed a decidated CID team, complementary staff of counsellors and the CPS at your beck and call. Since hate crimes are flavour of the month at the moment you'll also be potentially thanked by the lowly officer who takes your initial crime report and statement, as if it's straightforward enough they'll get a sanctioned detection, and thus a PI tick in the box, which benefits them as well! Few people who actually ARE victims of hate crime, in whatever form it may take, usually bother to report it, leaving the monopoly on this to people who include a hate element in the hope of expediting the investigative process and getting a heavier punishment imposed on the offender.

It's a great shame, though, that people are aware of these factors so use them to 'manipulate' the police, so that when these crimes actually do happen it actually comes as quite a surprise!

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

How on earth...

A call to a burglary at 1 in the morning. It's a pretty standard script - occupier has come back from the local watering hole to find their place turned over.

As always, what comes through on the radio is usually far removed from what you actually turn up to. In this case, it was a "Burglary Dwelling" (on the edge of The Twilight Zone).

I'll compare what the informant said to what the reality was:

Informant: Door to block of flats had been forced.
Reality: Correct, sort of. Door to block of flats had enough chipped wood, damage to the frame and lack of maintenance to have been forced hundreds of times in the past few years.

Informant: Window lock had been broken off, and they returned home to find the window open.
Reality: Window lock found outside, caked in dirt from having sat there for months.

Informant: People had entered the house and ransacked it.
Reality: House was relatively clean by council estate standards, insofar as the floor was visible and possessions were relatively squared away. (On a side note, you'd be surprised how many reported burglaries are, in fact, just particularly drunk tenants coming back from the pub and forgetting how much of a state their house is in.)

Informant: Several items had been stolen.
Reality: Items rediscovered as we went through the rooms to ascertain the M.O of the 'burglar'. Certain items the informant had then mislaid in front of us were then suddenly 'stolen', with our attempts to explain that we'd just seen them put it elsewhere falling on deaf ears.

Informant: Stable and sober.
Reality: Drunk, lonely and wanting company, hence the 999.

Police: A professional and courteous explanation of use of the 999 service.
Reality: Pissed off at wasting the better part of an hour, and completing half of a set of proformas that are as rare as rocking horse shit, on a non-job.

(c) Bow Street Runner. None of the material contained in this post, or this blog as a whole, may be reproduced without the express and written permission of Bow Street Runner. All rights reserved.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?