Diary of a former Bow Street Runner

Apologies, this IS my new blog!

2006-11-12T09:17:00.001Z

Posted on the 31st of a new blog, and didn't mention that it's taken over from this one!

This one is staying up as an archive, whilst I'm updating my other blog now which is running concurrently, at http://securityofficer.blogspot.com

Should really change the title though, as I don't do as much hotel security anymore!

Apologies, this IS my new blog!

2006-11-12T09:17:00.000Z

New blog

2006-10-02T08:21:00.000Z

http://securityofficer.blogspot.com

Working the private security gig

2006-09-30T02:20:00.000Z

I've decided that dealing in a casino 5 days a week really isn't what I want to do, so I put a transfer request in for their Security department. I secured an interview within 3 days, and pending variation of my gaming licence they'll start training me fairly soon. It's on a casual basis to start off with, so I can juggle it with the other casual security gig I'm working at a 5 star hotel and see which I prefer. Pay wise both jobs are only a couple of dollars less than the cops get, and at the 5 star hotel job I'm on the same rate as the cops when I work this weekend.

My Air Force assessment is in October, and the commissioning board is in November. If I'm successful, I'll start in early 2007. I've got my police application form to send off but the enthusiasm has gone. From speaking to a fair few officers here, the job really isn't that dissimilar, and is beset by the same obsession with bureaucracy; arbitrary paperwork and idiotic customers as the UK. Indeed in this part of Australia, police are rarely seen on patrol except on Friday and Saturday nights in the clubbing districts, as most visible patrolling is performed by private security, who observe and report and will intervene where necessary, usually handing it over to the police who will turn out from the station. Thinking about it, this situation may be because of ongoing industrial action over a pithy pay rise offered by the government.

I did my first late shift at the hotel, and it was unusually quiet for a Friday night, so I was trained up in cash auditing, patrolled a uni society ball and the hotel bars, which were pretty uneventful, and escorted a drunken woman back to her room, having been engaged that night and probably separated from her fiancee within a few hours going by the way they were carrying on! Pretty easy money.

Anyone still reading this?

2006-09-24T14:59:00.000Z

In the event that people still check this blog, I though I'd post an update.

Have got an application in for one of the state forces here in Australia. Not that enthused about it, thanks to talk of industrial action in one of the state forces and an ongoing industrial dispute with another. The pay is rubbish here for the police - I start work tomorrow as a security officer at a rather swank hotel, with an hourly rate that is just a couple of dollars less than what sub-18 month service police officers are paid, and a weekend rate that matches their hourly rate! Job should be a piece of piss, and they're looking to promote me to Assistant Security Manager after a little bit, so if the package is good enough, I might blow off the cops entirely.

Application for the Air Force as an Officer is proceeding nicely in the meantime - it's a good package and good job opportunities, so I'll probably do that for three years if I'm successful.

Have also been training for a Croupier position at a casino here, before the security position came up. So I have to ask myself - do I want to work security and be promoted, then possibly join the Air Force at some stage next year, or work blackjack several hours a day, several days a week, for a couple of months until I learn another game, then join the Air Force? For those who haven't played it, it's a bloody repetitive game to play, and even more mind-numbing to deal! The hotel, however, may be pretty quiet, so there's a risk that, after Christmas, my hours may be reduced, which won't happen with the Croupier job.

The answer is a bit of a no brainer (I shall probably favour the security job), but I'm going to inquire as to whether or not I can transfer across to casino security on a casual basis and work both jobs to get my debts from the UK paid off. If not, I've got a professional security qualification here, previous police experience and a truckload of other bits and pieces in my favour.

For those looking to come out here and not join the police - it's VERY easy to find work in the security field, with or without a security qualificiation, although having such a qualification will be beneficial. Unlike the UK, security work here can be pretty well paid if you find the right company and the right job at the right time.

I haven't missed policing in the slightest, and stay in occasional contact with a few colleagues and friends, who now want to come over! If you make enough of a go of it here, you can't really go wrong, and you certainly won't want to go back to the UK!

Wow!

2006-07-20T02:23:00.000Z

I e-mailed Richard Brunstrom (whose blog I've linked to), with my views on the idea and content of his blog (basically, keep it up!), and received a reply the same day! That's more than can be said for most senior officers in my old force, or indeed even the Chief Constable of that force!

Definately recommend a visit to his blog, as unlike other 'official' police blogs he writes about what he gets up to and his view on things, as opposed to trotting out a press release through another channel of distribution!

Updates...

2006-07-19T14:38:00.000Z

Hello everyone,

Things are going well on this side of the world. Temperatures for the winter are far more tolerable then the snow, sleet and hail of UK winters. Sunny during the day and rains (sometimes) at night.

Career wise I'm looking at Direct Entry as an Officer into Air Force or Army, with a view to specialising in Security Police (Air Force) or Military Police (Army) after a period as a General Service Officer. Haven't heard back from the civllian police forces I've enquired with, and a change is as good as a rest, so will press on with the military applications for now. Enlistment wouldn't be until 2007, so I've got a fair amount of time to explore, relax in and enjoy this country!

Added a link to the new blog by Chief Con of North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom. It's on the official site, but then he was hardly going to host it on blogspot as 'A Chief Constable Writes' now was he?

Taken to cycling again, especially with a very good and reliable bicycle network that has some great views. I wasn't formally cycle trained in the police, so I was a little nervous, having never been trained in the science of bicycle riding except by some ten years of trial and error as a child through to teenage-hood. However, I've not been injured, sued or have injured anyone, so I just might be ok without taking a course in it.

How to avoid prison...

2006-07-06T16:31:00.000Z

...crocodile tears! And the judge fell for it. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?

It's very amusing to sit on the other side of the world and observe the remnants of what used to be a system of protecting people and bringing offenders to justice slowly collapse in on itself through its own lunacy. These stories are a great cure for any residual feelings of doubt about emigrating!

And so that country continues to hurtle towards its own destruction, teetering on the edge of widespread civil catastrophe and institutional breakdown. I predict this within ten years the way thing are over there now. In the interim, the 'nation', whose identity is formed around a distinct lack of one, has not quite fallen into the abyss yet, but its not doing much to save itself either.

When it finally does go, with a whimper rather than a bang, will the rest of the world even notice? Ingerlund certainly seems to exist in its own parallel universe of morality, justice and logic these days...

Attention Aus cops...

2006-07-02T14:32:00.000Z

Could anyone who reads this blog who currently serves in Aus please e-mail me at constabularyduty@yahoo.co.uk ? As well as the Air Force I'm looking at joining the job here. As relocating is not a problem I'm keen to find out about the different forces and get an idea of what's involved, so would like to ask a few questions!

Bring on the revolution!

2006-07-02T10:24:00.000Z

Well, after a week in Australia, with two job interviews in the pipeline (one for the Air Force as an Officer a little later down the line, and the other for a mind-numbingly dull but quick-starting and interim cash-providing retail job), as well as a general standard and cost of living far surpassing most of what England had to offer, I am now in a position to look at BBC News and other websites, and think "Thank God I'm not there!" I certainly won't be living in the UK again if I have any say in the matter whatsoever. I shall be hiring an armoured vehicle for transport and will clad myself in Kevlar if I return for visits. It's great here - no Human Rights Act, a strict and stringent welfare system, no EU over-regulation or criminal-loving, to-hell-with-innocent-people rights groups. Crime wise it does have its problems here, but then any country in the world has, and compared to what I was used to in the UK, it's nowhere near as bad.

Whether it's drunken primates being sore losers over a football game, or the clear need to issue stab vests to civillians as standard, my decision to emigrate has been quite rigorously reinforced by the continuing decline of the country, occurring at the same time as a continuing increase in violent crime. As a cop I was issued with a stab vest, and to be honest, with the way things seem to be in the UK now, I'd have probably bought and worn one after quitting (had I stayed in the UK), because you've got a pretty good chance of being stabbed by some dickhead off their face on drink, drugs or both. They don't even need a reason - it could be for fun, because you looked at them the wrong way, didn't have/wouldn't give them a cigarette or simply because you were there! I await the inevitable stage where people stab each other as a form of greeting.

Carrying and using knives in England is as fashionable as any clothing accessories, backed up by lots of media attention, that satisfaction that your're sticking two fingers up to the government's pathetic knife amnesty, and that you can pretty much get what you want from the shrinking number of people who aren't carrying themselves. I don't write this because I believe the media hype - it's also because, from personal experience as a serving cop, I know that, for once, the situation is actually that bad.

So, aside from buying your own stab vest, assume that group of little shits on the corner in your neighbourhood/in the shopping centre/on the train has at least one blade amongst them and are drunk/stupid (or both) enough to use it for any reason whatsoever. Tool up or wear a stab vest and remain in a state of paranoia/readiness for the rest of your life. If they draw on you and you have neither a stab vest nor a knife yourself, hit them as hard as you can with anything to hand, and don't bother calling the police, because you'll be the one infringing the human rights of poor little Kyle, who was only carrying a knife because he doesn't like one of the other boys at school. Furthermore, school your kids in knife disarmament techniques in between Key Stage 1 and 2.

Because, let's face it, noone in power has the balls to do anything about it, so you have to take matters into your own hands. Don't waste time calling the cops - offensive weapon jobs will lose favour once the media storm dies down, and unless a force makes it a key crime, they won't take it too seriously until someone is stabbed, preferably whilst the offender is committing a force priority crime.

Either that or get out whilst you still can. At least there's less of a chance of being stabbed on an airplane these days.

Meanwhile, it's midwinter here and this weekend has been clear skies, sunny and between 19-23c. I'm a five minute bike ride from a river and park offering stunning views, and the food here isn't anywhere near as full of chemicals, so I can eat without worrying about steroid inhalation! Beats attending crap jobs, helping thankless people and following end-in-itself procedure.

Oh, and I see heatwave warnings have been issued. Aside from the fact that between 30-35c is quite bearable if sensible precautions are taken, people will read that as "Great! Let's go lie out in direct sunlight between 12 and 3pm without suncream, sunglasses or hats, and drink plenty of beer!" They then wonder why they get sunstroke, severe sunburn dehyrdration and an increased risk of skin cancer. Idiots.

Final police blog entry

2006-06-26T08:23:00.000Z

Right, I'm abroad now. It's been beautiful and sunny, even though it's wintertime, and I've already stopped thinking about the job. Things are underway, new career and integration wise, and moving was definately the right thing to do. To fully enjoy myself and make the most of these new opportunities, I'm disassociating myself with continued active involvement with police related stuff in the UK anymore - that includes forum participation etc. I'm on the other side of the world, it doesn't affect me anymore, nor do I care about it.

I may continue this blog in a non-police capacity, for those who are interested to see how things unfold here in terms of making the change, lifestyle, opinions and comparisons on life here versus in the UK. If you want me to do this, please post a comment or e-mail me and let me know. If there's no interest, I won't bother.

On the plane on the way over I was reading 'Dilbert: The Joy Of Work' by Scott Adams. A very funny book. On pages 152-156 is a fantastic section called 'You Are Wrong Because' - a list of 'wrongs' someone commits when airing their unqualified and nonsensical thoughts and opinions on a topic. So, I've decided to write the police version, with full credit to Scott Adams and the book.

Fill in the blanks and circle the errors, then print out and give to the person concerned. Works equally well with either the public, colleagues or management:

YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE

Sir/Ma'am,

For your convenience, I have circled the acts of stupidity that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) you recently made on the topic of: PLACE TOPIC HERE

AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY

Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.

FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT

Example: From what I've seen, more police means less crime.

I AM THE WORLD

Example: I didn't get an immediate police response to my report of a burglary that happened yesterday. Therefore, the police don't care about people who are burgled.

IGNORING EVERYTHING SCIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE BRAIN

Example: People commit crimes because they feel like it - there's no other motivation.

THE FEW ARE THE SAME AS THE WHOLE

Example: Some police officers prosecute people for speeding. Some police officers speed when going to jobs. Therefore, police officers are hypocrites.

GENERALISING FROM SELF

Example: I'm new to management. Therefore I believe you know nothing about the job either.

ARGUMENT BY BIZARRE DEFINITION

Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.

TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECT

Example: We should increase police performance figures because I woke up on the wrong side of bed today.

JUDGING THINGS WITHOUT COMPARISONS TO ALTERNATIVES

Example: I don't insure my car. (Generic insurance company) are too expensive.

ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS EASY TO DO

Example: If you have the right resources, how hard could it be to identify the mugger from a crowd of 3000 with no CCTV, descriptions or witnesses?

IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS

Example: Criminals ALWAYS get away with crime because there's not enough police to catch them.

IGNORING THE DOWNSIDE RISK

Example: I know making all officers single-crewed increases their personal risk, but it means there's more patrols around!

SUBSTITUTING FAMOUS QUOTES FOR COMMON SENSE

Example: Remember, 'good things come to those who wait'. So don't bother applying for promotion.

IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS

Example: Catching ten street robbers is an excellent result, compared to catching one murderer.

CIRCULAR REASONING

Example: I'm right on this because I'm the senior manager. And I must be the senior manager because I'm right on this.

INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF DEFECT

Example: Your activity monitoring report didn't include how long you spent writing the report, therefore it must all be inaccurate.

IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT A GOOD REASON

Example: Sure, the police advise that you shouldn't leave your Ferrari unlocked, running with keys in the engine and aboandoned in the middle of a dodgy area, but I have my own theory.

FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS

Example: The prisoner recommended I don't bother searching him. That's good enough for me!

REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION

Example: I was assaulted in a club whilst drunk and on a night out. I'm sure that's because police were targetting speeders.

FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION

Example: This estate has houses burgled every week six weeks in a row. Next week, we're focusing everyone on a car crime operation on the other side of the division.

FAILURE TO RECOGNISE WHAT'S IMPORTANT

Example: I know you're struggling with someone wielding a knife, but could you tell me where the nearest cash machine is please?

UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF SUNK COSTS

Example: We've spent tens of thousands on this divisional restructure. We can't change it back now or it will all be wasted.

OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM'S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS USUALLY RIGHT)

Example: The simplest explanation for an increase in crime is more criminals.

IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

Example: Crime always increases when we introduce new paperwork that ties up officers. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it's not reliable data. So we continue to introduce new paperwork, since we can't tell if it has an effect on crime.

INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES

Example: I was mugged for the mobile phone adorning my neck one reason only: The police weren't patrolling on the street at the time.

JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS

Example: Sometimes people arrested by the police haven't done anything wrong. Therefore, it's better if the police don't arrest anyone.

BLINDING FLASHES OF THE OBVIOUS

Example: If I stopped drunkenly inviting people to fight me, I might not get assaulted as often.

BLAMING THE TOOL

Example: I bought a burglar alarm but I still got burgled. The burglar alarm must be defective.

HALLUCINATIONS OF REALITY

Example: I can get the police to solve any problem I may have.

TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION

Example: If you don't get officers to document what time they take refs, next thing you know they'll never report anything they're doing!

FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WHY RULES DON'T HAVE EXCEPTIONS

Example: It should be legal to drink and drive, as long as you don't kill anyone.

PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE

Example: I've never seen you arrest anyone, therefore you must be a useless police officer.

Enjoy!

Hi-vis stab vests

2006-06-21T07:48:00.000Z

Saw some officers in the area I'm currently residing in wearing hi-vis stab vests!!!

Sorry if that sounds strange, but its a complete unique phenomenon to me! We've always worn black overt stab vests, which whilst warm and require a hi vis overlay sometimes, look quite smart and professional. The hi-vis ones, with various bits of kit hanging off it, just look messy and thrown-together, though I'd imagine the officers would be cooler wearing those than black with hi vis over the top.

Is this the way of the future in an effort to make the police more community friendly? I liked the way Strathclyde police went - all black, with polo shirts, combat trousers and flat cap. I tried it once - for the first three hours of foot patrol I went out in white short sleeves, body armour and helmet, and was mithered by the public and got all sorts of passing comments from drunks. After refs, I wore a black fleece under the body armour, with a very high neck which zips up so you can't see the tie or white shit, a flat cap and belt attached to body armour. Was left alone to walk in peace, not even so much as a request for the nearest cash machine! Forgot to attach the epaulettes to the fleece too, which was an added bonus.

I suppose police should be approachable and friendly, but when you can't go more than six steps without being asked stupid questions by three separate members of the public, you wish you could just be left in peace, intimidating enough to not be bothered with trivial rubbish, but not intimidating enough to deter people bringing genuine police business to attention. Also helps if, when dealing with offenders, you don't look to them or the public that you're dressed up to give them a hug straight after the bollocking, which is what I think hi vis achieves.

Police 'need to be more diverse'...

2006-06-20T06:43:00.000Z

According to this headline. Not quite sure why it's a headline really, for self-appointed 'leaders' of rent-a-cause who are short of their monthly press release quota need only trot this one out and guarantee a few column inches. In fact I often read the papers and think "Hmmm, it's been at least 6 weeks since there's been a call for more women/minority/Martian/police officers in the press - I wonder what will be in here tomorrow?"

Leaving aside the Met's spectacular ability to generate bad press of Biblical proportions for themselves over the last year, Phillips here is clearly jumping on the back of the bandwagon of negative sentiment against the Met after the Forest Gate raids. I don't know the intel behind the raids, and I wasn't on the raids, so can't comment on them. A look at Philips' article - the gist of which is "more Muslims in cops = less community relations problems", and applying the essence of the Forest Gate raids - triggered by intel, which according to reports was duff, fails to reveal a connection between a change in recruitment and the execution of these raids. How does Philips expect this to have changed Forest Gate?

Would he honestly have expected the line "We've got intel there's a chemical device in an address in North London" to be answered by a Muslim officer with "Don't raid them. They're Muslim. You'll cause community relation issues. Let's risk death instead of publicity" or "I know them. I'm Muslim and thus know every Muslim in London, and it ain't them"? I think not. More Muslim officers does not mean better or more sensitive handling of intel, unless each and every single officer is transferred to Special Branch or put on Counter-Terrorism assignments, in which case it would be their job to handle such intelligence on a regular basis. Unless that happens, more Muslim officers will mean more Muslim officers doing the same as all other police officers - drowning in paperwork, being crapped on from above and leaving after getting cynical and disillusioned. Most officers didn't know about the raids and weren't involved in them. Any increase in recruitment in the last year of Muslim officers would mean they would still be going through training school when the raids took place, and had no knowledge or input whatsoever. What planet does Philips hail from trying to link Forest Gate as a base to launch a campaign for a change in recruitment laws? There'll be more raids, probably with more backlash, in the interm. Is he going to demand that someone who even so much as fills out a preliminary application form be put on active duty to appease people?

If Philips is hoping for more Muslims to enter and then hoping they will be favoured over other candidates for promotion, he'll alienate the rest of the minority groups the un-elected and self-appointed CRE 'exists' for, so if he's in favour of that he'll need to be very careful about how he promotes that in public.

I only know a few Muslim officers, all of them as capable as the next officer, but I do know the turnover rate for Muslim officers is quite high. Why this is I cannot authoritatively comment. However, changing the recruitment law to increase the number of Muslim officers will succeed, probably, in nothing more than inflating the turnover numbers even further, as more Muslim candidates are shooed in under false pretences and are not given a realistic job preview, decide it's not for them and resign, going the same way those that joined under other recent 'mass recruitment' campaigns for some forces have gone. You can't force officers to join, nor can you force them to stay in, even if it is in the name of PR. It will result in some shite and unscrupulous candidates getting into the job, knowing they got in because of their ethnicity and then demanding their every whim and desire be catered for lest they play the race/religion card to the press and the Force's minority rep association, which reflects badly on those who are actually good at the job and put up with the rubbish passing itself off as procedure and 'best practice'. They're not excessively vocal or crying injustice every five seconds, and are thus quietly smothered by modern policing (metaphorically speaking) like everyone else. Merely getting on with the job these days is no way to survive!

Department names

2006-06-16T08:50:00.000Z

Cheers for everyone's comments and wishes of good luck by the blog and by e-mail. Much appreciated!

Before I left, I noticed the force renamed quite a few of its departments, from a name that provided a vague insight into what the department did, to names that seemed utterly meaningless, excessively multi-syllabic and appeared to be the result of putting a collection of nouns into a hat and drawing two or three at a time to form the new name, often with the nouns bearing no correlation to the work carried out.

I have two theories as to why this is the case - either there's a competition between forces to have departments with the most syllables in their names (each syllable incurs a point); or the vaguer the name of the unit, the wider their remit can be creatively interpreted, and thus more irrelevant work can be shovelled in their direction.

Here's some examples:

Tutor Unit becomes the Professional Development Unit
Accident Investigation Unit becomes the Collision Reconstruction Unit
A new unit set up mainly to deal with intelligence becomes the Operational Tasking Unit and seems to be doing everything now.
What used to be Section and gets shafted with any positive lines crime on the division becomes the Area Policing Team
Volume Crime Unit (shoplifter squad) becomes the Volume Crime Prisoner Processing Unit

Even more ironic was the renaming of some units to sound more paramilitary, at a time when providing a friendly, corporate image seems to be important, such as the Dog Unit becoming the Tactical Dog Unit. I predict the imminent establishment of the Tactical Paperwork Unit, given the mission of strategic insertion of arbitrary forms into the daily routine of police officers everywhere.

Any more for any more?

Appeal for information

2006-06-13T19:12:00.000Z

Can whoever 'anonymous' is who says they know me please drop me an e-mail? Quite curious to find out who it is and if they do actually know me!

I'm free!

2006-06-13T10:47:00.000Z

That's it. Done. Dusted. Sorted. Over. Whilst it's a strange feeling not having the warrant card on you all the time (it's drilled in at training to always carry it with you), it's also a feeling of liberation in part as well.

Whilst I'll miss my colleagues and some aspects of the job, I won't miss having to walk on eggshells whenever speaking or acting, for fear of offending people. "No it's not because you're black/white/muslim/agnostic, it's because you are being an utter cock and behaving in a criminal manner." Nor will the endless and arbitrary paperwork purely for obtaining statistics be missed. There are some in the job who have become so obssessed and brainwashed that due process has become an end in itself, as opposed to a means to an end. This applies especially to crime recording and resulting.

One of the last things I did was write a 1-9 up for a Burglary Other that occurred last year, was resolved at the scene by the offender paying the money for the stolen item, and was only put on because muppet incarnate complained about myself and another officer after the incident, and PSD insisted the crime be put on. Point 9 asked for the officer's next tour of duty. I took great pleasure in writing "Never, ever, ever again!". When I asked what the point of doing a full write-up for a crime that was resolved at the scene and is over 8 months old was, I was given a look of horror and the words "You can't just ignore that, it's POLICY!" Finished the write up for fear of being hanged for treason if I didn't.

Furthermore, at training people are ingrained with a view that using force is a bad thing, as it could lead to negative PR and a bad image, as well as it being spelt out that it could potentially be the end of their careers. Indeed some probationers come away from training so scared to use force that they were injured in situations where they need not have been, because forces were more concerned about their image than the safety of their officers. I never had a problem using force, and used it wherever I could justify it as being needed. I was more concerned with my human right to life than any conceivable rights of the offenders. It raised eyebrows, but I've emerged after a few years relatively unscathed and in one piece.

Any complaints I may have attracted will remain permanently unresolved, indeed my lack of concern for incivility complaints may not have done me any favours in keeping the numbers low. C'est la vie.

The ridiculous and quaint policies that cover every offence from assault to murder, which lead officers step-by-step through everything that must always be done in all circumstances, has killed what little discretion was left to be afforded by officers. Now, street level decisions made at an incident will often be in breach of force policy if not illegal. I've lost count of the number of cannabis joints I've put down the drain rather than confisicating and going through the bureaucratic rigmarole, wasting my time and everyone else's for the sake of one sanctioned detection. It's often accompanied with a lecture to the smoker, often a young asian lad, in which case it is centred around them being a disgrace to whichever religion they'll claim we are discriminating against.

So, why have I jacked it in?

Several reasons:

1. The job is shite - as any officer with more than a few years in will tell you. I'm naturally cynical anyway, and realised this after just two and a half years. It's run and determined at all levels by people more concerned about advancing and protecting their own careers than the utter mess they leave behind for everyone else to cope with. This runs from the top level of government down. Fighting crime is not a priority, something freely acknowledged by certain members of the force, preferring the achievement of sanctioned detections instead to keep the figures healthy. Real crime is a distraction, and any prevention or solving thereof is an incidental by-product of the main aim of the police - PR and performance management. If we tell everyone crime is lower, people will feel safer.

A good example is Manchester. An insider there e-mailed me recently pointing out that gun crime has exploded (so to speak) in recent months, often with at least one or two firearms incidents a week (indeed there was one today), yet senior officers will go on record to say that it's down, which considering there was the second double fatal shooting this year, in the same division as the last one, is somewhat rich. It's certainly down compared to the Gang Wars of 80s and 90s, but compared to most other places its a worry. At least Nottingham admitted they had a murder problem!

2. I'm emigrating - I've got the chance to move out to a country with a far better quality of life. I'm young, am not affected by pension worries having left the job and am taking this chance whilst I have it. Whether I join the cops or not out there depends on the culture, lifestyle and whatever opportunities present themselves out there.

3. I passionately don't care about the public anymore - having been abused, assaulted, complained about by and generally snubbed by the very people we supposedly swear an oath to uphold and protect, I've sometimes identified more with the offender of a crime than a victim. When you get to this stage you know it's probably time to finish.

More often than not, the victim is rarely innocent to a crime and is often as much to blame for it. They're the 'victim' only because they dialled 999 faster than the 'offender'.

Once every year someone will come up and say we are doing a good job and they appreciate and respect the police. They are becoming an increasingly smaller minority and their compliments no longer balance out the abuse and ungratefulness of the Great Unwashed I had the misfortune to encounter on a regular basis. The GU demand that police succumb to their every whim and desire; that police dare not close roads, redirect traffic or inconvenience them with such trivial things as crime scenes (which are, of course, there purely for them to walk through); that each crime be investigated with a full team of detectives, and summary justice be dispensed against whoever happens to be standing with a 50 yard radius at the time of the call, for they are 'clearly the one who did it'. Failure to comply with any or all of the above leads to an unleashing of cliches, threats of complaints and the kind of abuse you'd expect from a drugged-up and tooled-up lunatic you've just restrained and prevented from committing a bank robbery, even if you've just said "I'm sorry, the road is closed for 2 minutes whilst this parade passes by". They have, however, carte blanche to put themselves in harms way and in exceedingly dangerous situations, demanding that we get them out of it.

At the same time, the Great Unwashed are the first ones to complain if we arrest them for any offence under the sun, for in their own mind they have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. If we dare reprimand them for their behvaiour or conduct, they take on a demeanour akin to genuine surprise and offence, as if the police should be out policing everyone except them. Any intervention of any nature, including terorrist ops, result in the demand that we be catching muderers, rapists and muggers. When we say we've caught them all, they won't have it. Tossers.

At most jobs, nobody is innocent, the distinction is the degree to which they are guilty. Yes we police officer shouldn't pass such judgements, but do the job even for a few weeks and you won't be able to help yourself. Even the occasional purely innocent victim of crime, usually a member of the Chattering Classes, can turn on a dime to a nasty, snarling, hostile animal for even so much as the faintest whiff of something not going in their favour. How dare we say there's no way of catching the offender - we should be arresting everyone in the city and bringing them in for questioning. Damnit, they are the victim of a crime and we should be doing absolutely everything in our power to solve it. Never mind that it's the fifteenth theft from person we've had that day, they are better than everyone else and should get priority treatment. Sorry, if it's not a key crime it doesn't matter who you are, you'll just have to wait in line. Next time report it as a robbery or something.

Blue light runs to urgent jobs often involved braking at the last minute because some idiot decided that safety be damned, they were going to run right across the road in front of us, because the two seconds saved by doing so as opposed to waiting for us to pass, in spite of the risk of injury or death, would make a profound difference in their lives. I've often been tempted to get such people run over just to teach them a lesson. There's absolutely no excuse for it.

What gets me the most is when we're doing our job and are suddenly interrupted with "Listen to me", followed by a rant of how the utterly ill-informed and often poorly-educated fool with ideas above their station thinks we should do their job. I used a Life on Mars line on one to great effect, with "Shut up. I'll listen to the snot in my hanky before I listen to you" stopping them in their tracks.

The Public - wanting 100% of their rights, 100% of the time, 100% perfectly delivered and always 100% by everyone else. I'm sick of saving them from themselves and receiving nothing but hostility in return, and think they should just be left to kill themselves through stupidity without intervention. That's what most of them want anyway. They're not worth risking your personal safety or life for, and I no longer care what happens to them.

4. Erm - I think the above three and the previous blog entries explain it.

This isn't the end of the blog just yet though, final a post as this may seem!

Unable to organise a pissup in a brewery - why you should stay home to watch the World Cup

2006-06-10T19:27:00.000Z

If today was anything to go by, the World Cup this summer will be a nightmare for England.

It's a nice idea, showing crucial matches on a big screen in a busy city centre, but since people love to combine drink, football and violence, any attempt to stage something along those lines will ALWAYS end in tears.

Tempting as it may be to watch it outside in the sunshine with a big group of mates, it's not worth it!

You'd have thought the police and council, on a nice sunny Saturday, with England's first World Cup game due to be played in the afternoon, and the game being shown on a big screen, would have a decent operation in place to keep crowds under control; ensure everyone enjoyed themselves; uphold the law and stop people from being killed. Aside from a lack of deaths, which was quite frankly surprising, everyone involved failed to achieve any of these goals.

There is a law against consumption of alcohol in the city centre, with powers for police to confiscate alcohol which we assume will be drunk, by the way.

Here's what happened:

By 11am, there were already 1000 people in the area drinking. There were not enough cops on to do anything about this - most came on at half 12. Why didn't anyone launch the operation earlier?

The Council came up with the bright idea of erecting construction mesh fencing around an area of the big screen. That fencing didn't go up until near enough 12pm, resulting in it being built around people as they were streaming in.

Stewards were on to search bags for alcohol and control entry. Within half an hour we'd seized a lock blade, which had been thrown at one of the stewards by someone who ran in and disappeared into the crowd. There were so many people coming in so quickly that it became impossible to control flow and search everyone. Many point blank ignored the stewards or refused to surrender alcohol when requested.

By 2pm the fencing had to be removed entirely, as there were far too many people in the area, and the fencing would have been torn down, resulting in injuries.

The BBC ignored a request not to publicise that the match would be broadcast on the big screen.
We were expecting 8000. Partly due to the BBC, at least 12-13,000 turned up, and the relatively small number of officers on was very quickly overwhelmed. Enforcing the alcohol law or maintaining any sort of crowd control became both futile and dangerous for us officers. Most if not all of the division was sent down, and reinforcements called in from no less than three other divisions and two specialist units.

By kick-off (for the game, at least), we had clearly lost what little control we had of the situation in the screening area and withdrew, resorting to keeping any more people from coming in. We pretty much locked down the entire area - noone came in, and if you went out you weren't allowed back. People weren't happy.

Shopping centres and shops had to close to prevent people circumventing the cordons to get to the screening area, and to prevent widespread theft and/or crushing. They lost a lot of money today.

Idiots were turning up and completely ignoring the police tape or officers standing by it, ducking under and trying to get in. They looked genuinely offended that we dared to challenge them for crossing the line.

I gave up trying to explain that we couldn't let people past because there were too many in the area; people were getting crushed and injured and it was too dangerous for them. Towards the end of the match I was strongly tempted to let people through with the words "Fine, get seriously injured. I'm really not arsed". The police don't protect the public from criminals, we protect the public from themselves, and it is often an exasperating and futile exercise for which many are singularly ungrateful.

At half-time there were at least 30 people fighting in the crowd, 1 person stabbed and several people glassed. Ambulances could not get in and bottles were being thrown everywhere. We were witnessing mob rule, with the general throng of the crowd determining the actions and strategy of the police, instead of the other way around - an unfortunate phenomenon that is becoming increasingly common in this country.

People complained we weren't doing anything about it. They were right. There weren't enough of us to do anything. It was plainly apparent to even the most casual observer that we were reacting to what was happening as opposed to having anticipated it with plans in action, did not have it under control and were overwhelmed. I cared far more for my personal safety than for the safety of the general public, so did not risk myself.

The force helicopter was unavailable throughout.

We had to request voluntary closure of several stores that people were buying booze from and then drinking in nearby public arenas, in contravention of the law and creating serious risks of further violence. Luckily the stores complied.

I was kept on from 11am-6pm without a single rest break, after which we were told to get 'a quick bite to eat'.

The prisoners we locked up were treated better than us - at least they got food and water on demand. There were no lunch packs, the shops we were stood outside ended up getting us water, when it should have been supplied by the force, and a request by one officer for water bottles was met with The officer distributing them is on point and can't leave it". Bear in mind this is one of the hottest days of the year so far.

I got sunburnt on my arms, mild heatstroke and felt very ill.

We then had spots of fights at several different venues across the city after the game. A few were arrested. Many more could have been but it would most likely have exasperated things and resulted in officers getting hurt.

Today could have been far, far worse than it was, and it is only be sheer luck, as opposed to careful planning, that a major riot did not start. Next time, either public screenings should be banned entirely, or an early operation, involving a large number of officers at strategic points maintaing road closures, crowd control and rigid search policies should be implemented. When the area gets full, it gets closed off and this is communicated to the general crowd further away from the screening area. There should be a rotation of officers in place and enough food and water supplies to ensure officers do not become physically ill through lack of refreshments. The course of events and management of the day by the authorities involved was a disgrace. I know for a fact that things have been communicated to very senior level.

It wasn't a carnival atmosphere so much as a dangerous atmosphere. And this is when England WON!

For officers reading this - if you are offered overtime for World Cup related duties, trust me - do NOT take it!

Soon-to-be an ex-cop

2006-06-09T10:06:00.000Z

Sorted it so my final shift is on Sunday now, not next week - from 0300 hours on Monday June 12th I will no longer be a police officer. Woo hoo! Since these sorts of things come around full circle, I'm getting the same adrenaline rush and feeling of elation that I had when I joined the police.

Now I won't have to worry about wasting time getting KFC for people, arresting World Cup fans for racism or apologising for doing our job of protecting people.

"Why didn't you arrest the terror suspect who was about to blow himself up?"
"I didn't want to cause disruption to the community"
"No, you let him do a damn fine job of that himself didn't you!"

You'll be pleased to know, however, that I've used my initiative and have already implemented Liverpool's Trivial Crime Squad tactics myself - I'm often telling people that the pile of crap trying to pass itself off for something we should gave a damn about won't be investigated, and why. Since being on notice period, if they really start to annoy me I tell them the real reasons rather than trotting out the polite and rehearsed corporate spiel about lack of evidence - it is because they are wasting our time with one-upmanship allegations against whoever happens to have offended them this week, and really should get a life. Surprisingly, they don't kick up as much of a fuss about that as I'd have thought - maybe they appreciate being given a reality check? Nothing's come back to me yet anyway, and I don't care now because most of PSD don't work weekends.

I've decided to keep this blog going after I leave - will update it every so often with more inside info on policing as most of what i know won't be going out of practice within weeks of leaving, as well as little tidbits about life as an ex-cop and what I'm up to. There's a few things I'll miss:

1 - Collegaues - hard-working, dedicated, and put up with a world of crap. But I can stay in touch every so often via the Internet.
2 - Free travel on public transport - has saved me an absolute fortune over the years!
3 - Scrapping with people in such a way that no marks are left on them (hint - pressure points), the force is fully justified and they don't complain afterwards because they have something to hide/are drunk.
4 - Telling pain in the arse prisoners a few home truths in the old custody suites before CCTV and sound recording.
5 - Erm...
6 - That's it.

Will reveal my reasons for leaving after I've left, when I'm no longer under control of the force.

Leaving dos

2006-06-05T19:53:00.000Z

Have put the posters up for my leaving do. It will be one of many the station has had of late, as loads of people have transferred, retired or jacked the job in altogether.

A quick scan of Divisional Orders each week shows loads of officers doing any of the above. It's also interesting to note the amount of probationers who are resigning before they've completed their two years. Makes you wonder - did they decide the job wasn't for them, or is the job so difficult on new probationers that it takes superhuman levels of patience and perseverance to survive the initial period?

Either way, we're at the stage now where if there were ever to be an overtime ban or restrictions, we wouldn't be able to carry out all of our roles and responsibilities. Of that you can be sure. It's partly down to lack of officers and pisspoor management of officers that are there.

Yet at the same time there exists a list of officers who earn in excess of £1000-£2000 per month in overtime. I don't know if anything is done about this list. Certainly if bossess ask staff to cut down on the overtime they'd cause some major problems, since initiatives and obligations would go unfulfilled, and the bosses in charge of making sure these are met would face some tough questions. On second thoughts, if it's likely to affect a managerial career, nothing will be done that is adverse to the advancement or protection of that career.

Maybe I should ask the bosses how much they earn each month, and keep a list? It's the same principle, and they do less than half the actual work we do!

"There's been a murder! We need to investigate it!"
"Sorry, we haven't got the staff - they're all tied up on performance management evaluations, specifically with regards to meeting budget savings targets"
"Right well let's get people in on overtime - the killer has left a note saying he'll strike again within two weeks."
"Oooh, bad news on that one too..."

Police at gigs

2006-06-04T22:28:00.000Z

Worked a large-venue gig today. I won't say who or where for obvious reasons.

Off-duty, I prefer gigs in small venues, where you can get relatively close to the performers, and enjoy a more intimate atmosphere. Maybe it's just me, but the music seems more 'personal', that way. When I was a student, and even now when I'm not, I liked/like gigs in the Student Union's various venues for those very reasons.

Admittedly you get the 'wow' feeling stemming from the awe-inspiring scale of the concert when held in a large venue, but it's never really been my preferred choice to hear a group. Thus I've not attended one for many years. You either have to queue up for many hours to get a decent view, or you get stuck at the back and are reduced to watching the concert on a large screen, with all the atmosphere up the front. May as well stay home and watch it on DVD.

Maybe it was because I had an ear defender stuck in one ear and an earpiece in the other, but all I could hear was a general 'noise' which followed a vaguely familiar pattern (as I'd heard all the songs before). It was hard to discern between instruments, the vocals were too loud and all I heard was a vaguely recognisable tune, accompanied by the slow murmuring of the crowd as they 'sang' along. Then again, people don't attend gigs to hear a crystal-clear song. That's what high-quality recordings are for. People attend gigs for the experience of seeing and hearing that song performed.

At most gigs, we work outside the venue, on traffic point; crowd control; enforcing drinking bans and the like. Very few work inside, and those who are will be Public Order trained (proficient in 'riot' tactics). The same goes for football matches. It's primarily a safety issue - a small number of officers inside a venue against far more attendees is not conducive to a safe working environment if something goes wrong. The more cynical would argue that bossess don't want officers skiving off and watching the gig.

Today was a very rare occasion, as I was able to work inside, in plain clothes, on an operation to tackle incidents of drunkeness, which had marred previous gigs in the area. Once everyone was inside the venue, there wasn't much for us to do, so I was able to enjoy the concert. I remained professional, however, as I still found time to eject a few drunken idiots. See - I can balance work and play!

In the main, we opt for discretion over intervention, as most events will have their own stewards and marshals responsible for the majority of the grunt work involved in queue management, admission etc. We just hang around in case something goes wrong or traffic levels (human and vehicle) reach stupid levels. It's an easy shift!

Something in the water?

2006-06-02T11:25:00.000Z

Have been quite busy on shift so haven't had the chance to update.

Last night I swear there must have been something in the water, because there were more fights than usual in the town centre.

For some, a good night out is not complete if it is not accompanied by a punch-up, for any reason whatsoever. This perhaps stems from Industrial Britain, when thousands flocked from the farms to the cities for employment, overpopulation crippled the water supply, and the general populace resorted to drinking ale more than water, which was far cheaper to produce; cleaner and safer, as the heating of the hops killed bacteria, which was endemic in the water supply. The raucous and near-perpetual state of drunkenness enjoyed by the people of that time, with the oft violent atmosphere brought about by the circumstances people found themselves in, has perhaps been the breeding ground for generational inheritance of this predisposition towards violence as a nominal objective when intoxicated. I have no sources to prove my theory, so feel free to disprove it!

Anyway, within the space of an hour there were seven or eight reported fights, half of which turned out to be the usual phantoms. For the remainder we managed to neatly circumvent the force assault policy, send the parties on their separate ways and result if as 'no offences'.

Sadly in one particular incident, a MoP (member of the public, or in this case a NoB, an idiot) was unhappy with how we resulted a taxi fare dispute in which both parties alleged the other had demanded a mobile phone with threats. His unhappiness was manifested by every cliche about the police under the sun and threats to "come and get us all". I don't see why he was so upset, we merely adopted Standard Operating Procedure and told everyone involved that it was a civil dispute to be sorted out amongst themselves. As a form of pithy, drunken protest, he decided to stand in front of our van and prevent us from leaving the scene. Not in the best of moods, I alighted and shoved him on to the pavement. He ran back and stood in front of the van again. Were it not for CCTV and potential witnessess, I had half a mind to transfer him into the nearby canal. Instead I settled for arresting him for obstruction and taking him a reasonable distance away. I tried to spin him around so he could face me for one of my lectures, but as he was drunk, he lost his balance and fell to the floor. This was not what I intended, but a fortunate bonus nonetheless. He was then dearrested (because, of course, the grounds for arrest were no more). That seemed to do it. I might get a complaint for some of what I said to him - by the time an incivility complaint is actioned I'll be long gone!

Next two idiots were fighting in the corridor of a tacky hotel. We separated them and used our area's tactic of sheer numbers to overpower. I arrested one of the men involved, as I was due off later than the others. He kept slipping in and out of consciousness. Concerned that he may have taken something else other than his body weight in spirits, I asked a question to that effect, otherwise he'd be leaving in an ambulance rather than a van. No reply. Needed to know before bringing him in, so slapped him hard across the face with the back of my palm. That woke him, then whilst repeating the question he fell asleep again. The same palm slap didn't work, so in a scene reminiscient of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he was slapped across the cheek with one of my force-issue leather gloves several times. This time it worked and he snapped back awake, to mumble something incomprehensible. His mate threw up all over one of my colleague's boots. Delightful. Somehow the glove tactic seemed to get around the nick very quickly. Not Home Office approved, but fully justifiable nonetheless. Better than risking him becoming ill en route to custody because we didn't know he'd taken something.

Finished just as two confirmed thieves-ons came in. I always miss the good jobs and get lumbered with the low-level drunken shite. Does my head in sometimes!

As an amusing aside, we were reading through the major incident list for the force, and saw a log titled "Attempted Suicide - May Prove", with the text of the (not particularly interesting) job below it. My colleague exclaimed: "I know that person"!

Me: "Who, the attempted victim?"
Colleague: "No, May Prove! She's on our area. Sure I've seen her before"
I looked blankly at him for a second, then it clicked what he was on about, and I had to slowly explain that "May Prove" is a tactful, shorthand way of saying "May Prove Fatal", not the name of the person involved!

Finally, we've got ten whole knives in our amnesty bin. So clearly that's the end of knife crime in our area. And my Gerber is going nowhere near that thankyou very much!

Perhaps the police magazine should be renamed?

2006-05-28T10:39:00.000Z

Considering the current media obsession with 'flavour of the month' knife crime, it's quite ironic that the Home Office's very own pisspoor piece of police propaganda is a magazine called 'The Sharp End'!

As predicted, the knife amnesty is just a futile publicity stunt, and anyone with even a quasi-functional brain will realise that any such amnesties always will be. As I wrote elsewhere, those most likely to use knives are not going to suffer a sudden attack of conscience and hand in the weapons, partly motivated by the fact that they will not be prosecuted if they do. Knives come in all shapes and sizes, are simple to get hold of and can be very easy to conceal, and are the perfect tool for any criminal.

Meanwhile, the media would appear to make out that there has suddenly been an epidemic in stabbings nationwide. I'm inclined to disagree. Knife crime is round about the normal levels, which are frequent anyway. There's two reasons why there's a perceived increase:

1. The knife amnesty, surrounding press and certain high-profile incidents have increased people's awareness of knife crime, as opposed to an increase in knife crime itself. Therefore, people read about nominally reported knife incidents more often than they would have done.

2. The press are giving more attention to knife incidents, quite possibly to show that the amnesty is a waste of time and that serious action needs to be taken. Good on them too, for once.

So what serious action should be taken? Banning sales of knives is a waste of time - people will just import them or get them elsewhere. The punishments for carrying knives should be increased. Possession of a bladed article, without a satisfactory defence (statutory or otherwise) should have a minimum term of five years. This will deter the opportunist criminal, or the criminal normally less inclined to carry a knife but will do so because of the limited punishment currently afforded by the system (I've seen people get small fines and conditional discharges for carrying knives before).

This, however, won't deter the criminal who carries and uses knives on a regular basis. In this instance I suggest that police firearms officers be granted firearms authority against offenders carrying knives. Ultimately, they are life-threatening weapons, are VERY difficult and dangerous to forcibly disarm at close range (so much so that we are not taught knife disarming techniques during training) and present serious threats to all involved. Therefore, if an ARV is able to be called out to a man with a knife, and have authority to use lethal force if need be, then that will also serve to send out a message that carrying a knife has very serious consequences. I'm not saying that it'll end the problem, but it'll at least provide short-term remedies on a job-by-job basis. I can't think of any long-term solutions, and I don't think there are any - we've been using knives and similar instruments for several thousand years. We're not going to end the culture in five.

Thoughts or comments welcome.

Imagine the newspapers if drunken cliches prevailed...

2006-05-25T02:34:00.000Z

"Police in 'doing their job' scandal"

The City of Scallies Police Department was rocked by scandal today, when it was revealed that police officers had arrested someone who had committed a criminal offence.

Said one horrified, utterly sober and sound-minded onlooker: "It was incredible. This guy was minding his own business, just smashing a few windows, when police officers just ... just ... turned up and arrested him!"

Another aggrieved bystander concurred: "I've only had 30 pints tonight and I know exactly what I saw. These cops just harangued this male, and when he started to shout threats of violence at them and wave his arms about, more of them turned up. Then they cuffed him and placed him in a van. It was shocking. The police should not be allowed to get away with this behaviour. They were heavy-handed and over the top."

Police Officers, who are emotionless automatons, singularly funded by direct personal taxation of whoever happens to disagree with them at that particular moment in time, exist to lock up innocent people who haven't done anything wrong.

This case is similar to the shocking incident just a couple of weeks back when a male was arrested for doing nothing more than jokingly poking people in the ribs with a 12 inch machete, which led to similar accusations of heavy handedness when police turned up and put the male on the floor. The outcry at this abuse of power caused ripples amongst the residents of Scally City's Stupid Idiots Estate.

"It's disgraceful - they should be out catching murderers, burglars and muggers, that are committing crimes right now, just around the corner, not wasting their time harrassing innocent people like us" said one scally to us, who wanted to remain nameless as he sped through a red light in a stolen car.

We tracked down a murderer; a burglar and a mugger, and sought their views:

Murderer: "Well, it's been difficult to kill people lately, what with all this CCTV and stuff around everywhere, so I've had to lay low for a bit. I tell you what though, when I do go out and about killing people, I don't get bothered by the police at all - 'cos they're always off dealing with them innocent lads instead. Gives us a right breather that does. Thumbs up to you, Joe Public! Taking one for the team!"

Burglar: "'Cor blimey - it ain't half easy blagging these days, what with them coppers ignoring us to focus on them people who work for a living doing stuff like driving whilst talking on their mobiles. Copped for it the other week though, when I was on the phone to my fence after a blag. I had several grands worth of gear in the back, when I got pulled over 'cos I forgot to use the handsfree."

Mugger: "It's awfully convenient you know - I get to go round and rob people whilst the police busy themselves with those who just want to go out and have a good time. I say, good on you officers! Jolly well done! Only last week, I was looking for a potential target when I saw a group of people around an officer who had just arrested some drunken larrikin for sparring with another in the street. I went up to one fellow, just as he yelled "WHY DON'T YOU CATCH SOME REAL CRIMINALS", and bally well took his jolly wallet and mobile phone then and there. Classic!"

Chief Constable Red Tape sought to assure members of Scally City's Community:

"I assure you all, that we will not be tolerating this kind of behaviour from our officers. Clearly, incidents in which people do not feel they are doing anything wrong are not of a police nature, and officers found arresting people for committing an offence will be severely disciplined.

In fact, in the spirit of diversity, I pledge to you all now that we will not arrest ANYONE, irrespective of sex; race; colour; creed or lifestyle. Now THAT is embracing multiculturalism. After all, if we can't arrest everyone equally, we shouldn't be arresting anyone at all. The days of discriminating based on someone committing a criminal offence are now over.

That is NOT what we are about. It is a supreme waste of time, especially when there's progress reports on status updates of implementation strategies of vision statements of multi-agency initiatives to be done instead!"

Several people arrested for committing criminal offences are considering suing the force for a breach of their Human Rights. Said one anonymous detainee: "It's disgraecful. I have a human right not to be arrested for anything, ever, and this is a flagrant breach of that right. I shall have my day in court, compensation, book deal and line of merchandise!"

Elaboration on previous post

2006-05-22T12:59:00.000Z

I received a comment from a reader, part of which needs elaborating upon:

"However, once a log has been created (after the helpful call staff has asked) stating injuries have occured, we must produce a crime report. There would be hell to pay if we did a skeleton crime report with no MG11. Even if you have all the evidence and m,ade the right decision it takes a brave (or cocky) officer to stand up to the DVU officer or sgt."

PC Midlands has a point - under NCRS recording standards, we should report a crime if one has occurred, even if nobody wants to proceed. There's several ways of going about this:

1. Crime it and file as 'undetected' - this occurs when there's no witnessess, CCTV, decent evidence (forensic or otherwise) or nobody wants to prosecute but we have victim details - this an absolute no-no in the majority of cases, as it will mean that the crime goes undetected and adversely affects performance figures. If you do this but name an offender, you'll have shot yourself in the foot - you will be expected, if not ordered, to go and arrest the offender anyway, so that at least it can be DNPed. It's still not desirable, but it's better than the crime being undetected.

A skillful update on the crime progress page can often square away crimes that might have ordinarily led to protracted and pointless investigations, without even needing to do Option 2. Stuff like "Victim description minimal, would not recognise offender again. Witness information incorrect and unable to contact them. CCTV camera was pointing wrong way at time of offence." I've become quite adept at this.

With this in mind, officers become far less likely to write down possible named offenders on a crime report as it will hopefully mean the crime can be filed and never mither them again. The evidence burden for the likelihood of the named offender and the actual offender for inclusion into the report becomes 'higher', if you catch my drift.

2. DNP it. DNP stands for 'Detected No Proceedings', and means that we would state that have detected the crime, but would not be proceeding with an investigation or proseuction, which then necessitated a checklist of reasons justifying the decision.

Management hated it, as a lot of crimes were DNPed and it didn't make their overall stats look good, and officers would offer the option of DNP to a victim, explaining the benefits of taking that particular course of action. It was my favourite option as it meant we still got the detection but didn't need to bother with a pointless investigation that even the victim didn't want. Plus there wasn't THAT much to write up once you became savvy about how to write it up. So, now, we're not allowed to do DNPs and we HAVE to proceed with crimes wherever possible. It may not go anywhere, but at least it's been detected and proceeded with.

3. "No offences, please close the log accordingly". In the majority of instances, police officers are still trusted to use this resolution information appropriately. Turning up to a report and there's noone on scene, there's no injuries in spite of the log or call saying there were, and clearly no crime has taken place all warrant this resolution code. This is also used when the victim flatly refuses to give any details or co-operate whatsoever - we can't submit a crime report with no victim! This is how the vast majority of weekend night tiffs are resolved, even if there are injuries, as people would much rather weather the aftermath of such altercations than get the police involved. Personally I'm not going to push someone to push charges in these situations.

4. Hand it over - only applicable if you're on an operation, with a specialist unit or have a 'specific remit' and have come across an assault. It means you just take the initial crime report; statement; arrest and process the prisoner and build the basic file, then hand the investigation elements and full file preparation to someone else. I've tried arguing before that my 'specific remit' is real crime, where victims are innocent, have suffered detriment as a result of the crime and are fully willing to co-operate with police.

Sadly, my one-man 'Real Crime Unit' lasted about half an hour when I was advised that there's not enough real crime to go around and far too many undetected trivialities I could be cracking on with.

Any other ways of dealing with these things, please post in comments or e-mail me at constabularyduty@yahoo.co.uk - I like hearing new and creative ideas!

Oh, and no, I wouldn't consider going into police training - the thought of spending ages teaching purely theoretical guidelines, some of which originate from an an unelected and unaccountable body that dictates from on high (ACPO) which have little practical application, forgotten within weeks of finishing training, does not particularly appeal to me.

How to apply force policy - long

2006-05-22T08:15:00.000Z

Lately I've been increasingly reflective about my time in the Job. I've been comparing how I saw and did things when I was very new, to those same matters and my approach now. Initially, Force Policy, and only Force Policy, was my guide. Now, however, Force Policy is followed, but only in situations where it applies.

Indeed, an officer's interpretation of a situation is often the deciding factor in a particular course of action, not a prescriptive set of guidelines and procedures written from above by those who are under pressure to meet the latest Home Office counting rules. I think if senior managers (I don't call them officers because they are so far removed from what police officers do that they are constables only in name) found this out, they'd be most upset.

An example of this is the latest 'proactive assault' policy. In a similar vein to domestic violence jobs, on high has divinely decreed that we should be looking to make an arrest wherever possible in incidents in which allegations of assault are made, and that all allegations of assault MUST be fully investigated and prosecuted, even if the victim changes their mind.

If this policy were to be unquestionably applied to every situation, you would never see another police officer on patrol in your lifetime again.
"Where are all the police?"
"Investigating about 10 or 11 slaps and shoves in the street that occurred last Saturday. It'll take 'em weeks, y'know".
"But someone got deceived!"
"Sorry, that's not a key crime right now."

When I first started, I would have been enthusiastically following this rule, turning up to, or coming across jobs where allegations of assault were made (the vast majority being neighbour disputes and public drunks) and happily locking up anyone who was alleged to have assaulted someone, even if this mean locking up both parties due to the inevitable counter-allegations. Indeed I see the younger-in-service brigade do this on a regular basis, wasting endless amounts of their time and taxpayer's money putting together prosecution files for which the parties involved will later be vehemently opposed to, but unable to stop. Can't really blame them, they're just following orders, but there are better ways of going about it.

Common sense and disrection would dictate a different approach than just blindly interpreting the letter of the policy and arresting because it says we have to. Common sense and discretion are no longer conducive to modern policing. They are are phased out in training school, to be slowly regained with experience.

First, we see if the policy even applies. Is anyone even making any allegations or has an assault taken place? If there's no allegations and no evidence of assault, all is well.

Next, if there are allegations, is there anything in it? Force policy would say "Doesn't matter, arrest anyway". But if you arrest for assault just on the say-so of one party and nothing else, you're flying in the face of basic police work!
Take the Jeremy Paxman approach, think "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?".
It's well-known that in cases of assault, those involved are rarely innocent or predisposed towards telling the whole truth. Instead, you'll get an account which puts them in the best possible light, whilst putting anyone else in the worst, regardless of what actually happened. It's human nature and there's nothing anyone can do about it. So, with this mindset, look for holes in the story of the victim and physical evidence to support what they are saying. If the story seems to hold up and is consistent, you've probably got as much truth out of them as you can before taking a formal statement. Then speak to the alleged offender.

It's difficult to shake the prejudice one has when speaking to someone who is alleged to have committed a crime, because we are conditioned to oppose those who commit crime. Thus the person making an allegation has an automatic psychological advantage insofar as they are the one with whom we should initially sympathise, having being wronged by exactly the type of person we are obligated to protect against and prosecute. Some people know this and exploit it by making allegations after they've been slapped by someone they've badly provoked. It's vital, therefore, to be impartial and let you own emotions get in the way of a judgement. It doesn't affect you personally, so don't you personally get involved. Often, on speaking to both parties and (eventually) obtaining consistent stories, it's often the case that the roles of victim and offender are reversed from those of the initial reports.

If we have allegations, have we evidence? If someone's alleged to have been punched in the face by a 6"4' male built like a professional wrestler, are they really likely to be stood up, talking to you normally, without even a wince of pain or reddening of the face? Force policy would say "Arrest anyway". Unless one happens to be on their way back home from an abbatoir in full work gear. blood or bleeding from or on anyone is usually a good indicator. Someone on the floor out cold or having difficulty moving can also be a telltale sign. This one should be obvious really. If there's no good evidence whatsoever to match up with any allegations, then it's a safe bet that your prosecution won't get very far, nor will the victim be bothered enough, due to lack of significant injuries, to inconvenience themselves significantly over the coming months by giving statements, doing IDs, testifying etc.

Next, if we have allegations and evidence, is there present a desire to prosecute and a willingness to proceed? Force policy would say "Doesn't matter, arrest anyway". Never EVER ask "Do you want to press charges?". This will inevitably lead to an initial "yes", fuelled by the collective blood pressure of the situation, the alcohol or the loss of face (pun not intended) and bruised ego that an assault inflict on people. These are often more injurious to the victim than the physical injuries, and to regain their perceived sense of status, they will take advantage of this well-intentioned question, only to regret it later. NEVER assume that people want to press charges either. What can often be a serious assault will sometimes be accompanied with an abject refusal to co-operate or comply with the police. If you arrest the offender and try to take the victim through the investigation procedure, they will be un-cooperative and CPS will give you a dirty look as they decide not to prosecute the offence, wondering why you bothered to bring it to their attention in the first place when the victim won't even give a statement. By all means arrest the offender for a serious offence and place them in a secure vehicle at the scene, but ascertain from the victim first whether or not they want to proceed. This leads on to the next paragraph.

If we have evidence, allegations and willingness to proceed with prosecuting the assault, you MUST explain the assault policy to them. This is where many probationers fail, as they just apply the policy without explaining it to the victim. Hell, with the Victim's Charter now law, this is merely an extension and interpretation of the obligation to inform about what you are doing and what you will do. So explain to the victim, on the scene, then and there (if you're able to of course, if they need to goto hospital don't keep them there) that, if they decide to prosecute, they cannot change their mind later on. They can't, a few weeks down the line, decide it's not worth it and request to retract their allegations. They will have to give a detailed statement; have photographs of their injuries taken; be called in to identify the suspects and eventually testify at court. If they don't want to attend, they'll be sumonsed, and the consequences for not attending then really aren't good. Emphasise that it's an initiation of a serious set of events, and not something to be taken lightly whilst nursing injured pride. Don't say "I think you should press charges" or "Mate, just leave it". That's not your call to make. But if you fully explain the procedure, including what will be required on their part, and that it is a road down which they cannot return. If they want time to think about it, you'll have their details, and the offenders (which you have, of course, verified through PNC, local and voter's roll checks), so if they call back the next day and want to proceed then at least it'll be an informed decision. More often than not, in light of this information and their responsibilities therein, they'll decide it's not worth it. You've saved their time, your time and taxpayer's money just by taking the time out to explain something.

The best part of this approach is that you can't be accused of "cuffing" jobs either. In a slightly longer amount of time it takes to cuff a job, you've systematically assessed whether or not there are any substantial allegations, whether or not a crime has even been committed, and if so, whether or not the victim wants to proceed. A couple of sentences in the pocket note book (signed by the victim if need be) and you're got your arse covered so well that not even a crime evaluator could come back at you alleging you've breached force policy by not arresting someone at that job.

Discretion and common sense are being continually eroded, but the pervasive police mentality of "let's find the best way of interpreting and applying this" for any new piece of procedure, bureaucracy or law means that this potentially onerous policy only applies in genuine situations. Thank God for creative thinking. They'll probably issue a force policy against it soon.

How to make efficiency savings by cutting back on the numbers of police officers.

2006-05-19T14:47:00.000Z

A conversation, somewhere in any police station in the UK. Today:

"Do you remember about a year and a half ago you were given a deception to investigate?"

"Yes, sir, I do. I remember being landed with a handover package that wasn't even worth wiping my arse with, meaning I had to start from scratch, retake statements and deal with the entire investigation on my own as there was noone else available to help me, having never dealt with a deception before.

Furthermore, I had to waste half an hour consulting the Evidence Review Officer, and a further hour and a half on CPS consultation, 45 minutes of which was spent waiting outside as there's only one lawyer for the entire division. This wouldn't have been so bad, sir, if all the departments were at the same nick. But instead, I had to book the prisoner in at one station; wait for a lift to the station the ERO is at, which is three miles away and took 30 minutes in rush hour traffic; get a lift back to the station the prisoner was in at to complete the pre-charge file; take the file to CPS, based at a station on the other side of the division, again waiting for a lift as there's no vehicles and nobody thought to provide me with one knowing full well I'd be at this for a while; get charge authorisation; go BACK to the station with the prisoner; charge him; then wait for a lift back to my home station so I could finish! What would have taken an hour if all the facilities were at the same station, took three hours because of travel times, waiting for lifts and general arseing about.

Ultimately, in spite of all this and slaving over a full file, the charge was downgraded from obtaining services by deception to a straightforward theft, at a stroke rendering painstaking hours of work and pages of prosecution file useless. The crime evaluator must have had a personal vendetta against me, because every progress update was returned with an additional piece of bureaucratic process I had to complete, drip-fed to me rather than presented as a straightforwrd "to-do" list, wasting my time and theirs. Finally, I was called in to court on a Rest Day only for my evidence to be agreed at the last minute. All this was whilst being given several other crimes to investigate, updating my outstanding crime queue AND attending urgent jobs when noone else was free. That's several days of my life that I'll never get back, and I'll defenestrate myself before I have to go through such a shambles again".

"Well, congratulations! You're clearly the station expert on deceptions, and have been given the role of 'Deceptions Champion'. Your job is to collate and monitor information on all deceptions that happen on our area, present this information at briefings and to supervision, and find ways of increasing victim awareness and preventing it from happening. Where possible, we'd also like you to be the initial investigator for the deceptions. Yes it is hot in here isn't it - you go ahead and get some air in here. Plus, you'll be asked to work on a multi-agency strategy co-ordination implementation initiative project that...

...where's he gone? Oops - I knew I should have locked that window!"

Teaching and tutoring new police officers

2006-05-18T17:26:00.000Z

When I first started, I was a raw recruit - ridiculously keen and enthusiastic, with a thirst for knowledge. Fresh out of training school, I had memorised law and procedure and was ready to hit the streets.

Unfortunately, that manifested itself as over-confidence in just a short space of time. Having picked up basic process procedures such as issuing producers for drivers; £30 Fixed Penalties for traffic infringements and filling out stop-search forms (as they were then, before they became stop-account/search forms), combined with one or two successful arrests for minor offences with varying degrees of resistance, I was convinced that I knew it all and there was nothing more to it.

A couple of people arguing in the street? John Wayne here would wade in and separate both parties before it got out of control and someone got killed.

Someone's committed an offence? What on earth are we waiting for, let's get in there, arrest them, and try to prosecute for the most serious offence possible!

Being tutored and advised how to do things? Get out of here! I can handle everything on my own. Experience be damned, 'out of the box' thinking by us newbies is how things get done around here!

A few injuries, 'words to the side' and the forecasting of the potential collapse of cases phased this gung-ho attitude out over time.

So it was, then, that when I eventually finished my probation, and unofficially took even newer officers out than I, I could understand where they were coming from when they were answering back and doing things 'their way'. I now also appreciate how bloody irritating it is, and commend my former tutor for not slapping me one on occasion - looking back I couldn't have blamed him if he did!

It's true that with each passing day, you see more and know less. Unfortunately, conferring your experience by way of offering advice or suggestion, but never order or demand, on handling (or, indeed, not handling, if circumstances require) situations to a new probationer often runs in direct competition with unbridled enthusiasm and immersion in this new role they have found themselves in. Enthusiasm usually wins out, often to the detriment of the probationer, who goes away to lick their wounds (both physical and mental) and learn from the experience, be it the incorrect administration of a form or process, which causes a case or ticket to become void, or a making an uninformed decision on the street that inflames what would have been an otherwise manageable situation.

Thus, whilst I will prevent new officers from doing things so obviously likely to harm them, such as wading into a confrontation without first risk assessing the environment; the people involved; the nature of the dispute and weighing up the advantages of intervention against the advantages of discretion, there are other times when I am convinced that words can not triumph over actions when attempting to exhort the follies of a particular course of action. Like bringing up a small child, there are some times when the youngling must simply learn through trial and error, for only then can they appreciate the validity of that which you were initially trying to suggest to them:

"You were right, but I had to find out for myself".

Students who pick up one proficiency early on and are relentless with it, to the exclusion of learning or doing anything else soon find themselves being advised that this is the right way to rub people the wrong way. As do those who insist on answering back or doing things 'their way' without even due consideration to alternative courses of action.

Officers with measured enthusiasm, a desire to learn and who ask plenty of searching questions find themselves given more to do earlier on, and are also recommended to supervision when an operation comes up that would be ideal experience for them. Those who have a unique and creative way of approaching matters pique my interest, and I have picked up and learnt a lot from people who look at things in an educatedly different way.

Furthermore, there's nothing worse than working with just one officer for the entire time during one's probation - exposure to just one style of policing - the nuances of conversation with the public; handling offenders and investigations - is quite detrimental to assisting the development and understanding of a system which cannot possibly be comprehensively documented. Instead, through working with different officers in different areas, probationers can get a 'feel' of the different ways of approaching situations, and mix and match until they have a style that is unique to them, and which they can carry off convincingly and effectively.

Ultimately, when you see people whose hands you have held in the first few steps of their career go on to be promoted or achieve excellent results, you can't help but feel very, very proud for them, even if helping them to get there sometimes involved moments of utter frustration and the onset of headaches!

MFHs - a double-edged sword for the police

2006-05-17T23:02:00.000Z

MFH stands for Missing From Home, and is anyone who is reported to the police as being missing. If you feel so inclined, you can read an example of a force MFH policy here

Whilst there is the odd occasion when someone who is reported missing actually IS missing, and they are most definately "high risk", the majority of cases a patrol officer will encounter are those of people who aren't actually missing.

One example might be kids in a children's home, who fancy a day out and don't return home before their curfew, or let the home staff know where they are. The home staff are obligated to report the children as missing, according to guidelines that vary between organisations, lest accusations of neglect of duty be levelled at them.

Unfortunately, the more wisened youngsters are fully au fait with this procdure, and will hang around town until after curfew, when they know they have been reported missing by the home. Lo and behold, they need only walk into a police station, or better yet, phone up or flag down a passing patrol, and it's a free ride home for them, with a fair bit of paperwork for the poor unsuspecting officer. They repeat the process the next time they're after free transport home. Since the pipsqueaks "are" technically missing, we can't stick them for wasting police time when they repeatedly exploit the system, much as I've been tempted to in the past.

Another example might be if a child doesn't return home after school, at a time when they normally return home. The more decent parents become genuinely concerned, and phone the police out of fear for their young one's safety, albeit often reporting it too soon for the child to be seriously considered 'missing' - they may not have come home for tea or weren't there when the parent went to pick the child up, which on it's own, and reported 10 minutes after the 'deadline', doesn't mean anything. In the vast majority of these cases, the child is usually located at a friend's house, where they decided to go on a whim afterschool, or in the local park hanging around.

Other, less scrupulous parents, will report their child missing because they cannot be bothered to pick them up from wherever they should be picked up. Suddenly, we become their taxi service and are responsible for visiting the usual haunts and seeing if their offspring is there, then picking them up and taking them back to indifferent parents.

Officers have been known to conduct 'thorough' MFH inquiries, which last the length of a tour of duty. They're either very keen to ensure that everything is completed and all angles covered, or the alternative jobs going aren't too appealing.

Once, at about 10 at night when on foot, I found two kids that were missing from home, home being a city some distance a way. After recovering from my initial shock at actually having a genuine MFH case to deal with, I took them to the station, filled out the necessary paperwork and phoned the parents of one of the children (Kid 1). They said they would leave the city later and come to our station to pick their child up. On phoning the other parents (Kid 2's), they point-blank refused to come down and pick their child up, rudely told us the child was in our duty of care, and that we should take the child up to them. My incredulity at this terse response was conveyed to an Inspector, who tried reasoning with the parents, but to no avail.

I phoned back Kid 1's parents asked if they could pick up Kid 2. They declined, as apprently there were four of them coming down to pick up Kid 1 - father, son, son's girlfriend and son's mate. Why it would take four people, two of whom were unrelated to the family, to travel an hour or so to pick up one of their children was beyond me. I tried phoning Social Services to see if they'd do the shuttle run, and they refused as there was noone free. Social Services suggested that a taxi convey Kid 2 back to their reluctant parents, who scoffed at the idea when I suggested it to them. There was no way we could take her back, because we were far too busy with jobs coming in, the relief I was on were due off in half an hour, we had no vehicles free, and the next relief were already tied up with jobs and prisoners.

Things were not looking good for Kid 2, who sobbed quietly as she was repeatedly pushed from pillar to post and failed by everyone who was supposed to look after her, including her parents. Social Services eventually said they'd try and arrange something. I left her under the supervision of an officer next door dong paperwork, and finished my shift. The next day, I came on to learn that she had finally left the station, at 7am that morning. Who eventually decided to take her home I will never know.

2006-05-15T23:02:00.000Z

Couple of bits and pieces

Couple of bits and pieces

Have added a Google Search and AdSense ads, as I'm looking at the possibility of transferring this blog to a static site, which will cost money, as I'm going to keep writing after I quit the job, but not necessarily about policing. This way I'll be able to keep the Bow Street Runner content and write about other stuff without having to start a new blog site from scratch!

Have also added a couple of links - The life of a Police Communications Operator, Wiping bums for fun and profit and You want to be a hero?

2006-05-15T12:12:00.000Z

Policing perspectives - Re-offending...

...is far more commonplace than most would like to accept. The Sun today has highlighted two examples, although the contexts are worlds apart. The first concerns a female who was raped by an offender on bail awaiting trial. I should be surprised this guy got bail in the first place if he was awaiting trial for two sex crimes - I normally make a pretty strong case for remanding them, based on the grounds of public safety and the likelihood of the offender disappearing or reoffending. That said, I've seen a Custody Sergeant bail an offender for breach of bail before (I'm not kidding, though I wish I was), so anything is possible these days. We haven't got the cell space to remand everyone who's potentially dangerous anyway, so we have to prioritise the most pressing cases for remand. Still doesn't stop me from requesting remand for people I think that need it, or stipulating very strict bail conditions if remand isn't granted.

The second , also covered by the Telegraph refers to Home Office figures that a large number of offenders on probation re-offend. Bystander posts a good explanation as to why we should not be demanding the heads of members of the National Offender Management Service.

Re-offending on probation should hardly be surprising if you think about it. Offenders, who have wound up in prison through the commission of crime (usually to fund drug habits) will, upon release or probation, find themselves jobless and unemployable; usually penniless and staying in a probation hostel. So they do what comes naturally to them - they commit crimes to acquire money, then score hits with that money, usually with better skills and know-how than before they were incarcerated.
They know no other way of getting by, and often most other avenues are closed to them. The cycle continues until they either wind up dead or go back inside. It happens in many countries across the world, and no amount of resourcing or funding is going to stop this pattern of behaviour.

Some decide that they don't like staying in a hostel and 'disappear', usually living on the streets or in drop-in centres and hostels under false names. A lot of homeless people I encounter are recently-released cons. One guy turned up to our station and requested he be sent back inside. We told him we couldn't just send him back in on a whim, but maybe if he committed a crime, then we'd be talking. He threatened to kill a fellow hostel resident if we didn't send him back in. We said that wouldn't cut it, so in our presence, he kicked the door of the station hard enough to be arrested for criminal damage, thus breaching his probation and going back inside, which is exactly what he wanted. If only all criminals were so considerate. The door needed replacing anyway.

Conversations with some people I stop on the street can go like this:

"What are you doing around here?"
"Just enjoying the sunshine"
"I'll rephrase the question. What are you doing, really?"
"Just got out [of prison] so finding somewhere to stay/sleep"
"Bullshit. You're grafting. What were you inside for? No wait, let me guess, we're in a car park, so you were inside for stealing cars or nicking gear from them. What do you think of the new TomTom? Will I be surprised if I find one in that grubby bag you're carrying, along with a crowbar and screwdriver?"

Sadly, being naive and optimistic in thinking that released criminals are reformed characters is a waste of mental energy. I usually assume that, as soon as they're out, they're grafting again. After all, they're busy people - places to case; things to steal; people to rob; habits to feed. I'm usually right.

Eventually, after obtaining their details and performing the usual identity checks on them, during which they point blank refuse to accept a Stop & Account form, they're advised that they'll be the first people I'll come looking for if a crime is committed that matches their MO (Modus Operandi) or previous convictions. It's usually a matter of days before their MO starts ending up on crime reports. In other cases, they'll commit crimes which aren't even reported or which we aren't able to solve due to lack of leads (witnesses, CCTVs, decent victim descriptions of the offender etc). Sadly we can't arrest people on the grounds of a matching MO.

Sometimes, offenders do us all a favour. We were called out to a body found in a water feature. A man, with a long string of previous, robbed an elderly couple by a water feature, during which the bag of money, which was the source of the robber's efforts, ended up in the water. Everyone ran away from the scene, and an independent witness later saw the self-same robber swimming around, probably trying to recover the bag and its money. Nobody was surprised, then, when the body that was dredged up matched the description of the offender. An Olympic swimmer he was clearly not. No tears were shed, and the death saved countless hours of investigation time. These are "public service deaths", because it's one less blight on society, and we can usually put a number of unsolved crimes with the same MO, or which were committed in that area, to them.

So, if you are shocked at the figures quoted in these stories, just remember that people on probation or release commit far more crimes than those published, we just either aren't aware of them or haven't solved them.

2006-05-12T12:37:00.000Z

Police officer stabbed to death...

...details are still sketchy, at the time of writing, but she was either investigating a disturbance on the street, or disturbed burglars in her home. A very sad incident, especially with it being the loss of someone who was prepared to do an often dangerous and harmful job for free, in their spare time. It also leads to consideration of the wider matter of intervention when off duty.

NB This is not a critique of the officer or her actions, more a contemplation of the topic of off duty intervention in general.

Involving yourself in something that does not directly affect you, in this day and age, is a situation in which the disadvantages far outweigh any possible advantages. One risks death; serious injury; complaints; no support from others; ungratefulness from those you've 'helped' (whether you're a police officer or not) and, inevitably, paperwork and general mithering when they're next in the station.

Unfortunately it is difficult to shake the sense of duty and, to an extent, obligation one feels as a police officer towards those which we agreed to protect, leading us sometimes to put ourselves 'on duty' and assist in a situation that we are witnessing, be it a minor shoplifter or a group assault on one person. Gradually, experience (and sustaining injuries of varying degrees) iterates that this is, more often than not, a foolish thing to do.

When one is not being paid for it (or if you're a Special, booked on and working), you should NOT intervene directly in anything that does not have an immediate bearing on you or people close to you. The safety and well-being of the general public takes a significantly lower priority than your own personal safety, even more so when you are not even expected to be directly intervening in matters. A few people sustaining injuries in a street disturbance without direct intervention is better than the loss of life arising out of a sense of potentially fatal altruism.

Look after yourself first! The Job probably won't give you much support and may even turn on you if you don't do things 'right' (which changes depending on what day of the week it is) anyway, and you can't expect other members of the public to intervene if things go wrong. Make a 999 call and leave it to the people who are on and paid to deal with the matter (although see below).

If one disturbs burglars in your own home, then the mantra is simple - when burglar disturbed, you kill burglar or they kill you.

You are likely to be supported in law (indeed there's some good reported cases on this) if you kill burglars in the act of committing the offence in your home, as opposed to, say, shooting them in the back as they're running away. You'll have public opinion, and probably the police, on your side anyway (though we won't officially be able to say so) and it's better than dialling 999 if you suspect something, and being told there's no free patrols. I challenge any judge or magistrate in this land to say that someone who does kill burglars disturbed in thier own home was not acting out of genuine fear for their life and the lives of those in the house.

Going back to this tragic incident, apparently a knife amnesty is to be launched. I think people need to look at this rationally - does anyone with even an ounce of intelligence really expect that this will trigger an attack of conscience in the collective psyche of the offending population, causing them to hand the knives in and no longer be armed in future? Amnesties are an utter waste of time, effort and money and make not the slighest difference. This sad incident will not change anything, such is the irreperable state of regression and (paradoxically) progression towards anarchy this country now finds itself in.

People in these cirumstances sometimes quote Burke: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

In fact, that quote is incorrect, he actually said: 'When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.' That is illustrated by this case - don't go in alone no matter what. Evil will triumph many more times after just the one incident, so there's no point in potentially making the ultimate sacrifice for something that, in the grand scheme of things, will make no difference.

Fortunately, my travel tickets arrived today and I am leaving this cesspit of a society/country within weeks!

2006-05-12T09:46:00.000Z

Children are our future...

...God help us all. Even just ten years ago, a story like this would have shocked. Now it meets with "Oh, that's slightly younger than they usually are".

It wouldn't be so bad if this was an isolated case. Sadly, I've dealt with loads of kids who are of similar ages and equally pregnant, heavy drinkers and smokers. It's actually quite widespread, which is depressing when you consider the future these kid-families will have.

2006-05-11T12:16:00.000Z

Leaving the police deparment soon!

It's official. On June 18th, I leave the force and regain the right and ability to use my own judgement and initiative. The final shift should be a good one too - going out with a bang and all that! I might even reveal which Force I work for and where I work in this blog! Will shut this thing down shortly after.

Meanwhile, I highly recommend that anyone monitoring the slow demise of society in this country as we know it could do far worse than read anything by Theodore Dalrymple on the subject. This is a good example.

I have been reading "Blue Blood", a book by the erudite officer Edward Conlon, of his life and times as a police officer in New York City. Many of the observations about those he encounters, and the nature of the Job, have a haunting ability to mirror those sentiments that myself and many other bloggers express. Here are some choice quotes:

When talking about going through the complaints system and dealing with people, Conlon urges caution because "the Job can turn on a dime from ally to enemy"

"The fact of the matter is that all cops exist in a state of mild infraction ... their shoes aren't shined ... or they stopped to eat or cash a check without putting it over the air ... or they left their hat in the car when they went to a job. It was only recently that I learnt that you can get a Command Discipline for reading the newspaper in a patrol car, an offense for which I'd be serving life without parole if I'd been caught each time I'd committed it".

"No one is completely by-the-book, because our book is the Patrol Guide...self-described as 'flexible', which could be read cynically to mean that even if you followed every step, you could still get jammed up if things didn't work out, because you could have done it differently".

"A lot of our old street antics, the spirited improvisations and crazy chases, seemed needlessly risky for a game that was hardly worth winning."

Is there even any end to the game?

2006-05-08T22:35:00.000Z

To the police, some people are stupid...

...terminally stupid, in fact, because the stupidity doesn't just occur in small doses - it's a lifelong affliction. To fully reason out this generalisation would involve several volumes of writing, but here's an anecdote involving individuals who have the ability make two short planks look like a computer.

Last week we drove past a takeaway where there was an altercation of some sort. We pulled out and surveyed the scene - several of the usual suspects (drunken idiots from the nearby estate) crowded around one of their own, with another imbecile in the takeaway arguing with staff.

Once we'd parted the group to try and find out what was wrong, the guy in the middle took his shirt off and revealed a spectacular wound in the back of his shoulder. Several tried to explain what had happened to us, but the voices merged into a cacophany of drunken primordial noise. Fingers were stabbed (pun intended) in the direction of the takeaway, which I loosely interpreted to be the scally version of " 'E 'dun it ", so my colleague went over and asked for the takeaway staff's version of events whilst I arranged for an ambulance to attend.

Takeaway staff are regularly subjected to drunken idiocy from the dregs of the human gene pool, and I'm surprised they don't lose their cool on a more regular basis. According to the takeaway staff, this group of neanderthals were particularly bad, and whilst I've yet to find out what it actually was made the server snap, the upshot of it all was that someone standing outside had ended up as a human shish kebab.

Putting aside the obvious joke that some takeaways really will put anything on a skewer these days, we had a straightforward Section 18 assault fuelled by stupidity and alcohol, but mostly stupidity. The guy bleeding was a muppet for his intoxicated antics, and his group were nincompoops for acting in a similar fashion, whilst the server was a fool for trying to add "drunk muppet" to their menu. Of course he had to be arrested, and he was placed in a van.

Sadly, the stupidity didn't end there. The rest of the human kebab's friends had phoned around conveying the news of this abject horror, with enlightened phrases such as "they come to our country and they do stuff like this" peppering the conversations. Resisting the temptation to ask the chavs why it's ok for their ilk to inflict such misery on people, but worse when "immigrants" do it, I got the feeling that this incident would not end once the victim was off to hospital at the same time as the offender was off to the cells. Other patrols arived soon after.

Sure enough, the Scally Army arrived to save the day, in the form of a bloke with a pitbull terrier by his side, controlled by a metal chain. As the bloke went up to his bleeding mate, being treated by the ambulance which had now arrived, to console him, the pitbull sensed fear and anger in the air and latched itself on to the victim's trousers, nearly tearing them off and adding insult to injury. I retreated back whilst the group tried to point out (ironically) the stupidity of wandering into a group of people whilst having a dangerous animal straining at the lead. He got the message and left.

As if the god of inanity had laid a curse upon us, a hulk of a man then arrived with a nice full bottle of Strongbow in his hand. He passed several of us, placed his tipple on the floor, went into the takeaway and tried to swing out at the takeaway staff whilst yelling obscenities. We bundled him out, but he foolishly told us that if we left the scene, he'd go inside and do it again. With such cleverness outwardly manifesting latent moronic tendancies, he was locked up and placed in another van, to save him from himself if nothing else.

Further illustration of the stupefying obtuseness of the Gathered Unwashed was seen in their demands for summary justice. Due process and habeas corpus be damned, this lot wanted the perpetrator sorted, and sorted NOW! Would that society could be controlled so arbitrarily, I would at a stroke be arresting the majority of those we encounter on duty for offending against base human intelligence, or at least possession of Class A senselessness.

Unfortunately, when you encounter and interact with such people on a regular basis, you fear either for the future of the human race, or for your own sanity. Usually both.

2006-05-08T21:51:00.000Z

A curious little product...

...I received an e-mail from a gentlemen asking me to have a look at a product called the Collision Stencil.

It's a device that features common symbols, vehicles and road markings, that can be used in the diagram section of an RTA report to improve the quality and representation of the illustration.

It's only £6 and looks like it'd be pretty useful - much better than my chicken scratch diagrams anyway!

More information here: http://www.collisionstencil.com/

2006-05-07T10:26:00.000Z

TV Cop shows...

...somehow lose their appeal when one partakes in the "live, reality" version. At least, they did for me.

Several years of displaying avid interest in the trials and tribulations that our on-screen counterparts, real or fictional, went through in the space of a weekly primetime TV slot soon diluted into bemusement coupled with disinterest, as the true nature of the role of policing was quickly impressed upon me by both word and experience - it's NOT "as seen on TV".

Be it the police procedural; the 'whodunnit'; the maverick cop show or the "fly on the wall", my reception to the majority of such shows is always the same: "That's not what it's really like!"

The omission of procedure and process and of unengaging patrol time makes for the so-called documentaries to be nothing more than an encapsulation of a modicum of policing that is neither the norm nor to be expected. A one-hour slot is usually a composite of several weeks or months of incidents, resulting in the skewed perception of police duties comprising non-stop running; fighting and chasing. If it was a reflection of what every tour of duty was like then half the nation's officers would be off on stress.

It's quite understandable, of course - nobody wants to watch a documentary about the police in which the most dramatic event of a shift is the stapler running out of staples, or adrenlaine-filled action comprising the attempt to stop that spilt mug of tea ruining the full file an officer has spent two days preparing.

Fictional notions of policing are usually met with derision from some officers, who bemoan the lack of accuracy or the plausability of characers. It can make for an unpleasant viewing experience for the layman who watches such shows with an officer. The possible exception to this could be the BBC's "Life on Mars", widely regarded by officers of senior service as being closer to reality than most people would like to accept.

Personally, I found that, after working a shift, the last thing I wanted to do after the tour of duty was to sit down and watch other people performing a loose notion of a vaguely similar Job unless it was particularly engaging. If I wanted to do that on a regular basis I'd sit in our CCTV suite during the primetime slot.

Some like seeing the work of specialist units which they would not normally encounter during the average tour of duty. Each to their own, of course - I request attachments with those units that interest me and which I am suitable for.

Our station occasionally plays host to a TV crew of some network or another, usually out to try and obtain footage to either assist with a show for the ratings wars or fill dead airtime. I treat the cameras like a firearm - if I end up in their line of sight I might be finished (metaphorically speaking). Indeed, most of my colleagues share my sentiments.

Recently, a camera crew decided to film a briefing of an urgent nature. The plan was for all officers in the division to be called in to the parade room, in which the briefing would be displayed on a large projector screen, in surrounds able to comfortably accommodate a large number of officers. As it happened, the projector wasn't working, so the event had to be held in the cramped Sergeant's Office on the woefully inadequate 15" computer monitor. The camera crew asked for those who did not want to be filmed to move out of frame, to the left of the room, but where they could still see the screen (or, at least, see the plastic casing that surrounded it). This led to the scene of thirty officers huddled in one corner, avoiding the camera's glare, with ten or so brave souls crowded around a tiny monitor attempting to read text of an important briefing. Truly, we have moved with the times. It was decidedly not the "well oiled crime-fighting machine" image that senior management wanted to project. That said, the machinery is so badly broken that no amount of spin, gloss and TV magic will create that effect!

2006-05-04T09:03:00.000Z

Watching a specialist unit at work...

...is something that not all officers get to see on a regular basis. To actually be involved in part of the operation the unit is involved in can often trigger an adrenaline rush that very few aspects of police work are able to provide.

During the course of this shift I was able to work not with one specialist unit, but two! An attachment for a couple of shifts with the dog unit is something most officers look forward to, partly because the dog unit is reserved for the "good" jobs, and isn't sent to drunken assaults; burglaries that have occurred hours after the event or shoplifters. Better yet, the dog unit is one of the few groups left that is allowed to actively pursue vehicles (if they're driving the right vehicle). Nights can often be a bit hit and miss - fortunately this shift was quite steady, with jobs coming in fits and starts, though none actually required deployment of the dog. It helps that I love German Shepherds too, though this one was quite young but very large, and nearly floored me when he jumped up to me!

Personally I think the dog unit should always be double crewed - they cover a large area and often have to listen to several radio channels at once if that area crosses over subdivisions. That's on top of navigating; using the radio themselves; driving and looking after the dog. They always appreciate an extra pair of hands.

During the night, we were asked to call in to a nick urgently. When we arrived there was brass (senior ranking officers) everywhere, and more firearms officers than I'd seen in a long time! We'd been asked to back up on a raid on a place. Without going into specifics, there was most definately going to be a male with a firearm at the place. Our job was to back up one of the firearms teams at the rear of the premises in case the guy tried to escape.

We left the nick in convoy and turned up at the place, waited for a bit whilst the brass conversed, then got out and formed up. The firearms officers had full kit on - bulletproof shields; PSU pads; helmets and goggles - the works, with MP5s out and ready. Have to admit I'd never seen them 'at work' so to speak (only ever backing up to jobs whenever there wasn't anything firearms-related going on elsewhere) and it was very impressive.

I stuck behind the dog man like glue as we went around the back whilst the main firearms team went around the front. In movies, these things are often accompanied by soundtrack. Not so here! There was deathly silence for a couple of minutes, then the codeword was given and the front team made silent entry through the main door (insofar as they didn't blow up the door or wam-ram it down).

A few seconds of silence, then the muffled sound of a door being kicked off its hinges and "ARMED POLICE! HANDS ABOVE YOUR HEAD! DO IT NOW!", followed by the radio firing up with "Male detained. Stand down. Stand down." Guns were unloaded, dog went back in the van and I was buzzing for hours!

Well-planned, well-executed and all officers involved displayed utmost professionalism at all time, as well they should considering the potential stakes of the job they are on and the tools or animals they are carrying. It also helped re-invigorate my enthusiasm for the job to know that sometimes, just sometimes, the police excel at dealing with matters like this - nabbing dangerous offenders with the potential to cause serious harm to the public. A refreshing break from dealing with neighbour disputes and drunks.

2006-05-01T22:17:00.000Z

May Day...

...kind of. Those scenes from 2000 of people running riot and causing untold mayhem are long gone, it would seem. In our little area of the world, the May Day activies planned for the Sunday, at least, were small in number and small in attendance.

Less than 40 people turned up, and, partly because of the lack of resources, there were only a few officers hanging around in case anything happened.

In the event, the small number of people who did turn up simply wandered around for a bit, with us ushering them out of any private land they went on to, played some music on their powered speakers someone had brought in, and generally milled about. They had some banners but they couldn't be read from any great distance. Therefore, whilst they made plenty of noise on the various percussion-based instruments certain activists had provided, the vast majority of members of the public either had no idea what was going on, or were not particularly phased. In fact I think most of the public only found out what it was all about by asking me and my colleagues who were stood nearby!

Whereas protestors have been known to do things like chain themselves to inanimate objects, or engage in sit-down-in-the-road-and-risk-getting-run-over
stunts, this lot didn't do much other than try our patience. 'Mischevious' would probably be the most appropriate word. There were no cenotaphs defaced or fast food restaurants vandlised, indeed the worst that happened was some of the protest briefly walking in a road that was both empty and closed to mainstream traffic. So pretty mild as far as protest shenanigans go.

Some protestors had various filming equipment out. I suspect they were expecting us to outnumber, arrest, assault or generally obstruct and disrupt them. If so, then they would have been quite disappointed that none of that happened, especially as the whole thing occurred towards the end of the shift, and the last thing we wanted to do was start wading in and risk keeping ourselves on past finishing time!

2006-04-27T23:14:00.000Z

Missed it, but never mind...

...the whole 'Dispatches' programme went over my head today, for I was doing actual police work whilst it was on. Having read around, though, the show would be more aptly titled 'Despatches', because of the likely knock-on effects, if not for Hobson herself but for her ex-colleagues.

I spent most of today around an area notorious for a huge spate of Burglary Dwellings, which has been a severe thorn in our collective sides of late. Everything logical and rational that we've tried has failed to curb the epidemic. We locked up people who were wanted for burglary and found in that area, but still the crimes were happening. We arrested people we'd occasionally find caught in the act, but with limited success on the actual crime figures. We've had plain clothes operations in place, high visibility preventative patrols and have paid as much attention to the area as our very limited resources allow, at the times in which the offences are usually committed, yet still the offenders are eluding us. Personally I'm down there whenever I'm free and speak to anyone even remotely suspicious or out of place (who are suprisingly compliant after explaining the reasons why). It's infuriating, as we've put as much effort as we possibly can into this, yet are not stopping the problem entirely.

Personally I think the people committing it are not from (or at least don't live on) the area, but know the area well. The MO in terms of what is stolen reads like a standard burglary job - small yet valuable items that are easily concealable and transportable (digital cameras; laptops; jewellery etc.), so it's unlikely that places are being targetted for property that is being stolen to order, which probably rules out organised groups. With limited resources, we simply cannot put officers out there, either in plain clothes or uniform, 24/7, and since the times the jobs come in seem to vary, with different MOs, it's either different offenders, or an unusually clever burglar who is deliberately scattering the times and MOs so as to keep us on our toes.

My suggested solution is to vastly improve the limited CCTV coverage of the area. When a burglary does occur, footage for the previous hour or so before the burglary, and the 5 or 10 minutes immediately after should be pulled off the system and trawled through, hopefully yielding at least a few shots of the likely culprit(s). The images can then be circulated on our division and elsewhere, with the hope that an eagle-eyed officer will recognise and identify the person/people involed, whom we can then retrieve a list of their known addresses, associates and other intelligence and then pick up. It's labour-intensive but if it brings about the cessation of these burglaries it will be time and money well spent.

I sometimes take it quite personally if I've been working in an area in which a crime has been committed whilst I was nearby. Even if the reality is that there was nothing more I could have done to either prevent the crime or apprehend the offender, I am beset with a feeling of frustration and a sense of futility in my ability to do the job, which usually spurs me on with a renewed determination to get the reprobates who are making people's lives a misery. Unfortunately, as I'm usually on foot in the area it limits my potential effectiveness and deployability - I can just do the best I'm able to. It will pay off sooner or later.

2006-04-25T23:02:00.000Z

With such utter incompetence at the top...

..is it any real wonder that this country is in such a state of rapid decay? 1,023 foreign prisoners released without deportation, and the Home Secretary outright admits that the Home Office cocked up (but uses casual language to try to minimise the potential damage of the confession - the Home Office "took its eye off the ball".

Some comments on parts of the article:

1. "Charles Clarke said he did not know where most of the people, who include three murderers and nine rapists, were." - well that's bloody reassuring. Not only were they released improperly but their whereabouts are unknown. Do people not verify small details like, oh I don't know, addresses given on release?

2. "Mr Clarke said the 1,023 prisoners, who were released between February 1999 and last month, should have been considered for deportation or removal." - With the costs of keeping someone in prison ranging between £23,000-£30,000 a year, paid for by the taxpayer, that's £23.52 million to keep all of them in for one year alone at the cheapest
end of the scale! Thus your tax money is going towards the upkeep of people who are not only criminals but often don't even have the right to be in the country in the first place!

3. "The Home Office later revealed that of those, 288 were released from prison between August 2005 and March - suggesting the problem continued after it had been raised with the government.

The National Audit Office told ministers last July that preparations to remove foreign criminals from the UK should begin "much earlier" and not be left until the end of their prison sentences." - So even though the Home Office were aware of the
issue, it still continued for over 7 months. It doesn't begin to justify thecomments below by the Home Office lackey.

4. "On Tuesday evening a Home Office spokesman said: "Additional resources were directed to this, but the system continued to identify more cases than we could consider.

"Now there are sufficient resources, and we are confident no further convicted foreign nationals will be released in this way." - hear that, folks? You can all breathe a sigh of relief. The coast is clear. After the release into the wild of 1,023 criminals over 7 years for a variety of offences including murder, rape and burglary, the Home Office has FINALLY acknowledged there is a problem and has put sufficient resources in place. All hail our wise and efficient government, able to contain a problem and stop it from getting worse over a protracted period of time. No doubt the extra resources were attending 9-week diversity courses at the time, unable to be allocated to anything else until that was completed.

5. "Mr Clarke had said the failure leading to the 1,023 releases was "deeply regrettable" and conceded that people would be angered by the oversight." - once again, a total lack of an outright apology and the deployment of both understatement and meta-language to cushion the blow. There's a one-off oversight, then there's 1,023 "oversights" over seven years, which is more colloquialy known as "sheer bloody incompetence".

Some will inevitably be angry over this, others may end up dead as the murders, rapists and burglars exploit their newfound freedom and reoffend at the cost of the same taxpayers who paid for their upkeep whilst inside, of a country they didn't even have the right to be in, safe in the knowledge that if they do, they'll probably get assigned more rights and protection than the victims and their families. Isn't Britain a wonderful place to be!

6. "So far the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has located 107 of the total, leading to 20 deportations." - so of a roughly 10% recapture rate, there's a 18% deportation rate within that already pathetic number. Fills you with hope and confidence doesn't it!

7. "Among the offenders, five had been convicted of committing sex offences on children, seven had served time for other sex offences, 57 for violent offences and two for manslaughter.

There were also 41 burglars, 20 drug importers, 54 convicted of assault and 27 of indecent assault." - clearly some fine upstanding potential citizens then that our shores have been accommdating at the taxpayers expense, and that are now roaming free without anyone knowing where they are.

8. "The Home Office said it did not have full details of offences committed by more than 100 of the criminals, but 237 were failed asylum seekersand 54 were still having their asylum applications considered.

More than 870 were serving at least 12 months and 13 were serving more than 10 years. " - I simply refuse to believe that an administration that is noted for its obssession with audit, bureaucracy and ensuring EVERYTHING is written down cannot hold full details on over hundred people held in the prison system. The figures once again show that more should have been done to keep track of them. These are not petty criminals, with the majority serving over a year's worth of custodial sentences at least.

9. "Pressed by the BBC to explain why he should not resign, Mr Clarke said: "I certainly don't think I have a duty to the public to go - I have a duty to sort this out.

"It is a massive issue and it's true to say, with the vast growth of foreign national prisoners, we took our eye off the ball.

"The first priority at this moment is to get the situation under control - that is what I'm focusing on.

"We don't know exactly where everybody is ... I know where about 100 of those 1,000 now are and we are going through the most urgent cases." - does this mean he'll resign AFTER it's been sorted out? After all, in any other industry, and indeed in the public sector itself, most people would be getting the boot for such a monumental screw-up over such a long-period of time, ESPECIALLY as it continued happening even on his watch when he was aware of it, in spite of the Opposition's argument that he doesn't need to go.

10. "Mr Clarke, who is likely to make a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday, following calls by Speaker Michael Martin, said the Prison Service and IND had "failed to carry out their responsibilities in the way they ought to
have done".

But he said both had taken steps "to lead me to be confident that it is now being done properly"." - well thank God for that then. I mean, it's only taken seven years.

Finally, Downing Street add their voice of concern to the issue:

11. "Downing Street says Tony Blair has "full confidence" in both Mr Clarke and Mr McNulty.

"It is unreasonable to expect ministers to know what is going on in every nook and cranny in their department," said Mr Blair's official spokesman." - yes, because the prolonged failure of the system to keep accurate records of the crimes of foreign criminals; failing to process their release and subsequent deportation properly, and for it to continue even after the Home Office were alerted to the matter is just a 'nook and cranny', a trivial matter that the Secretary need not concern himself with.

Blair's line is bollocks and he knows it - under the doctrine of Individual Ministerial Responsibility, a minister MUST take full responsibility for what goes on in his department, and cannot claim ignorance or lack of knowledge of what goes on as an excuse. In Clarke's defence, he isn't trying to, so why is Blair's spokesman trying that one?

Methinks the government is quite embarrassed that this became public.

I shall be leaving this country in the near future - and I won't be shedding a single tear! When you read about people at the top making mistakes like this, you really do wonder if what you do at the bottom is making even the slightest bit of difference in the long term and in the grand scheme of things. I've reluctantly accepted that it hasn't and doesn't, and am slowly biding my time until I emigrate. Sadly I think there's not much hope left for this country - when you've got a government that can't even manage decline properly, you know things are screwed!

2006-04-25T07:36:00.000Z

Starting out? - Part One

I have recently received a few e-mails from people just starting out in the job asking various questions. So, I thought I'd write a post with some tips and advice for new officers.

The first essential recommendation would be that the new or potential recruit undergoes a full psychiatric assessment and head examination. Why? You'd have to be mad to join the job from scratch right now!

One of the big reasons for this is the new pension scheme, which, compared to the old one, royally shafts new recruits.

Compare:

Old scheme:

30 years maximum pensionable service
Increased accrual after 20 years
Additional Voluntary Contributions
2/3 final salary
11% contributions
Minimum pension age of 50

New scheme:

35 years maximum pensionable service
Same accrual rate throughout
No AVCs
1/2 final salary
9-9.5% contributions
Minimum pension age of 55

So as you can see, the new scheme is quite harsh compared to the old one, and is better suited for younger joiners, in their early 20s. If you're older than that, you won't be retiring in your early 50s! It's still better than most private sector pensions, but compared to what it used to be it's quite a bad plan if you've only just joined.

There's also rumour of plans to look at doing what American forces, particularly the LAPD do, and hire police officers on five year contracts. It's not for life anymore, is this job!

Other tips would have to include basic ones like "don't leave your kit lying around". It'll go missing, and that's even if your collar number is all of it. You can leave money lying around, that's not a problem, for it won't vanish into thin air. Maybe officers feel that, as all issued kit officially remains the property of the Force/Service, it's merely redistribution, rather than theft.

Issued kit does the job just fine, and there's no need to buy anything to complement it. You can tell who the over-enthusiastic regs and Specials are, because they have belts and body armour full of excessive, never-to-be-used kit, looking like a poster boy or girl for Niton. Personally, I've managed to get my belt kit down to the essentials - baton, cuffs and CS spray. As you go through your career, you'll continue "optimising" what and how much you carry:

You: "You're under arrest"

Offender: "It's a fair cop, guv. You gonna handcuff me then?"

You: "Nah, I didn't see the need for carrying stuff like that anymore - I've felt light as a feather since then! Now come with me whilst I find a phone box and dial 999 to get a van for you. Whilst were at it, can I borrow a pen and a piece of paper to write your details down?"

From personal and shared experiences, getting anything from anyone in the job is like getting blood out of a stone, especially clothing and equipment stores. They hold on to equipment like they paid for it out of their own pocket, and short of having the Chief Constable accompany you for each visit, you'll be fighting an uphill battle for even so much as a new pair of trousers:

Clothing Stores: "Have you got the requisition form?"
You: "Yes, here it is - double-signed; dated; printed in triplicate; perfect autography; double-checked item numbers and sealed in blood. I hope it's to your specifications"

CS: "This isn't f0r a pair of standard black police trousers is it?"

You: "No, it's for non-standard pink trousers with flamboyant orange polka-dots. Of course it's for a bloody pair of black trousers!"

CS: "Well we changed our catalogue last week and your skipper has put the order code in for the undercover clown costume. It's all been signed and sealed so we won't be accepting any amendments whatsoever. You'll need to get another requisition form with the right code on it I'm afraid"

At this point, a 999 call is usually made for a police officer assaulting a member of aforesaid department. Description of the offender is a male dressed as a clown...

I'll think of some others when I'm in a more serious mood. I'm off to fantasise about what it would be like doing public order patrol on a Saturday night in an oversized yet brightly-coloured outfit...

2006-04-23T19:11:00.000Z

St. George's Day...

...was today, for those who didn't know, for those who knew and didn't care, or those who were getting drunk but not quite sure why.

Quite aside from the absurdity of a national day being marked by celebrating in the name of a patron saint who not only never set foot in England, but is also the Patron Saint of Aragon; Lithuania; Palestine; Portugal; Germany; Greece; Moscow; Istanbul; Genoa and Venice (bless the English - so little left to identify with that an identity has been formed out of lacking an identity, and they share their patron saint with many others), the day is traditionally marked by the far-right barging in and making a nuisance of themselves. Today was no exception.

Whilst the majority of people either didn't celebrate at all, or celebrated in a non-aggressive and peaceful manner, a fair few known BNP, NF and associated hangers-on decided to go into our area and cause some trouble, which partly involved whipping drunk patriots into a xenophobia-based frenzy. They then acted in shock and disbelief when half the division turned up to ensure they left the area without any trouble.

We were accused of "letting the immigrants come in and take over the country" (because apparently there's a direct correlation between closing a pub to prevent serious public disorder and the central government's immigration policies); "having nothing better to do" (we're on top of our rape and murder cases you see); "picking on us 'cos we're English and celebrating our national day" (see, even ethnic majorities complain of discrimination - the police have finally achieved diversity - we discriminate against everyone) and "in need of a life" (no argument there). Apparently, also, "you lot don't do this for them Asians during their Eid thing" (ignoring the fact that we normally have an increased presence whenever there's Eid). The people telling me this were the same ones doing Nazi salutes and offensive chants as young families were walking past.

An hour later, the pub had a far more friendly crowd inside. Meanwhile, the troublemakers had done the rounds of other venues and found themselves singularly refused entry, or soon kicked out if they did get in.

Makes me proud to be English, do those people.

2006-04-23T03:08:00.000Z

A wild fantasy crowd control solution...

for Friday and Saturday nights. A lot of town and centres usually have clubs in clusters, or along a street (think Saucciehall Street in Glasgow, for example).

Come kicking out time, a mobile machine of some sort should be positioned at the bottom of the street, and emit a curtain of very powerful air that takes up the width of the street and ushers people further up the street, but is too strong to breach if people try and get past it.

Slowly, this curtain of air pushes the drunken revellers further up the street, so they don't congregate and fight over taxis or whatever. Eventually, it gets to the top, where there's hundreds of taxis waiting, more than enough for most town and city centres, and people get home quickly and easily and without risk of being killed.

Everybody wins here - the air is free and renewable, so it doesn't drain on resources; it'd be relatively cheap; it doesn't hurt people and people don't get hurt from it, plus it wouldn't require as many yellow jackets on the street.

If people are getting lairy, then the machine should also be able to serve as a water cannon, and as a flamethrower tank for the REALLY violent. That'll make them think twice about causing problems if a big wall of flame is behind them!

The idea would never work in practice, of course. It'd be audited to death and there'd eventually be a human rights challenge, resulting in the machine being withdrawn because the force would be too scared to contest the challenge for fear of bad publicity.

2006-04-20T14:25:00.000Z

Hands off!

Added a copyright message to each post after I found out that a journalist nicked one of my posts and cut most of the content of it so it makes me look bad. Journalists - never trust them!

2006-04-20T11:03:00.000Z

That's just a risk you'll have to take...

Recent change in orders means that we're to be single crewed wherever possible. The rationale for this is research stats that show in 85% of cases where officers were assaulted, the officer was paired up, and that the chances of being assaulted at a job are one in one hundred thousand (or something like that). The management logic, therefore, is that if we're single crewed, we've got only a 25% chance of being assaulted, which is more 'acceptable'. If that doesn't make sense to you, don't worry, 'cos I don't think it makes sense to anyone else either!

Now there's a couple of problems with this management logic. First, the theory is that if you're single-crewed, you don't attend jobs like violent domestics or fights, unless there's backup, which immediately means that, unlike a double-crewed unit, the risk of being assaulted has decreased. They've probably counted officers assaulted when single-crewed who had backup into the stats, in which case, of course it's less likely that you'll be assaulted when single-crewed in these circumstances, because you'll have at least two other officers with you, as they're sent as a matter of course to certain jobs. If you goto a job and you're double-crewed, you'll be left to it unless you specifically request extra patrols.

The other problem is that since they'll now be sending two or more single-crewed units to a job, instead of one double-crewed unit, we're still going to have a lack of resources to deal with incidents because a lot of them will still tie up at least two officers, be it one or two vehicles.

But, hey! Look on the good side - we've only got a 25% chance of being assaulted if we're faced with someone being hostile towards us an we're on our tod. And it gives the public the impression that there's more police on the streets (when there's not - it's the same amount but in more vehicles). And if you have two or three cars turn up to a job you phoned in, you'll feel reassured that your're being taken seriously.

I wonder how this will work for prisoner transport, when a single-crewed officer turns up to a job in a van with a cage and needs another officer to jump in so they can transport to custody (we're not allowed to transport single-crewed)? Will the second officer have to leave their car at the scene?

2006-04-15T03:27:00.000Z

"Dial 999 yourself officer"

No disrespect to Diary of a Police Dispatcher, but there are some times when dispatchers/radio operators can beggar belief. This incident, and the other one I'm going to tell you about, both happened on the same division, which is not the one I regularly work on, but over different periods.

The first one did, in fact, happen on the shit I was referring to in my "Why the f*** do I still do this job" post. I neglected to mention it because I was more frustrated and irritated by other elements of that shift. I've resignedly accepted what I'm writing about, although it's only happened twice so far, thus didn't think anything of it when authoring my previous post.

NB: Airwave radios that are personal issue have telephony, insofar as they can dial normal telephone numbers. The alternative to personal issue is pool issue, when radios are in for repair etc. The pool radios do not have telephony capabilities (probably because they can't be audited to each individual user).

On this shift, we ended up, during a rare spot of patrol, on the divisional border. In an industrial area my colleague and I could see that a skip was on fire. I changed my radio channel to the talkgroup that covers that division, and shouted up (on this shift I had a pool radio). I was initially told to wait as comms were busy, then they let me proceed. The conversation went like this:

"There's a skip on fire at xxxx Industries, on xxxxx Road. Could you please call the fire brigade out to this location?"
"Negative. We're far too busy. Can you please dial 999 yourself using your radio telephony?"
*A slight pause as I think "What the hell did you just say?"*
"Negative, I don't have telephony on my pool radio."

The answer to that, in as many rather curt words, was that would I mind dialling 999 on my mobile then or getting my colleague to do it on his personal issue radio, as they were just far too busy up there at the moment. Perhaps they'd like me to run up and down the street waving my arms wildly and shout "FIRE! FIRE!" instead?

My colleague was shocked as he'd never experienced this before, and ended up changing back to our normal channel to shout up a job on a different division, because the operators on the division that should have done it refused to.

It wouldn't be as bad if it was only a one-off. But it's happened before too!

Some months back I worked an operation that involved foot patrol on the same division this incident occurred on, as the operation was run over two divisions. It's good to have a change of scenery. We came across a male with breathing difficulties, so I shouted up comms and asked for an ambulance. Again, I was told that they were far too busy and would I mind contacting 999 some other way.

The end result of that one was, on a busy road during a busy time, motorists would have witnessed the sight of two officers in (relatively) expensive kit, in possession of the most advanced radio and communications technology for many years, doing exactly what the personal radio was meant to bring an end to - taking time out to contact another emergency service, time which could have been spent assisting with the said emergency. Having a personal mobile phone at all times is not optional, it's essential!

It probably isn't entirely the fault of the dispatchers, and it's entirely likely that they're that snowed under and subject to such infintessimal bureaucracy they don't even have a second to breathe. But patrol officers are reliant on radio operators for the performance of certain tasks when on the street. Operators are, in effect, the lifeline of the officer. So when you are told to dial 999 yourself not once, but twice, it does shake your faith in the support network that is supposed to help you.

Thus, the next time you see an officer on their mobile phone in the street, don't automatically think that they're unprofessional and making a social call. The sad truth is that there's a very real possibility they are calling out the ambulance or fire brigade to a job.

2006-04-14T14:15:00.000Z

You've got mail!

A contact in another force recently inquired as to whether or not their force had a policy on blogging. They replied, eventually, saying they did not, but replied with a 2 page letter citing, chapter and verse, several statues; case law; Code of Conduct and force policy on disclosure, confidentiality etc.

And this is the kicker, one of the final paragraphs:

"Thus, any officers found to be inapproriately discussing their work activities will be breaching the above legislation and policies and action will be taken accordingly."

I've interpreted that for what it is - a "don't even think about blogging" warning.

Just because the Force may not like the idea of officers discussing their work activities does not automatically make it 'inappropriate', for such a term is very subjective. Furthermore, 'inappropriate' does not, as they seem to impute here, mean it will necessarily be in breach of legislation either.

Perhaps I'll start blogging with stuff forces want to hear, along these lines:

"Today, thanks to my Force's revolutionary new Innovative Policing Strategy, I was strategically tasked to combat anti-social behaviour, an issue that is blighting the good citizens of the force area and is a top priority for the force to combat. Through effective deployment of a new experimental method of behaviour control and processing of offenders, I was able to overcome the obstacles faced by this challenge and take the low-hanging fruit which enabled enhanced service delivery, measured in performance management terms. Through engaging with multi-agency partnerships and Key Strategic Long Term Overviews, my role as a police officer was able to be discharged with professionalism, valour, courtesy and with a big healthy dollop of diversity for good measure. And it had nothing at all to do with chasing detections, honest."

Nah.

Why the f*** do I still do this job?

2006-04-14T04:47:00.001Z

Have just drafted my resignation notice, partly to let off steam. I haven't handed it in yet but after several years this is the closest I've been to throwing in the towel.

This blog serves as a great way of venting and also informing the public at the same time, but this shift I've just come off was an absolute farce by any reasonable standard, which if it wasn't true would be funny. This story's got it all - senior management overreacting; pointless bureaucracy and more or less the final straw to this laughable joke of a 'job'.

Nearing the end of a 10 hour shift, we are informed an hour beforehand that, owing to the larger-than-expected number of people in the entertainment areas, we may be kept on in case something happens.

For a start, how can this be larger "than expected"? It's the Thursday before Good Friday, a public holiday. A lot of people will have been paid, and don't have to goto work for (in some cases) several days. Logically, therefore, there's always a lot of people out on this particular Thursday night. Surprisingly, this pattern on the calendar and on the streets has emerged over many, many years, so how the bloody hell can numbers be larger "than expected"?

I've already had a rubbish shift, dealing with half-arsed handovers by officers who really aren't too bothered about little details like statements that contain the bare minimum of information. And why should they be? They'll never have to deal with the job again, and their supervision won't reprimand them for neglecting to do their job properly, no matter how much we complain. They can get away with it, so they do. So the poor sod lumbered with the handover more or less has to start from scratch.

We were told that a decision as to whether or not to stay on would be made half an hour before we were due to finish, by the covering Sergeant. Sergeants don't normally have this authority. However, in this case, our erstwhile off-duty Chief Inspector (probably on a night out or something), on seeing a lot of people in areas that have bars and nightclubs, decided that a visible presence should be shown (because, of course, we don't already do that and would never dream of providing yellow jackets in a crowded area, for we are but drones, unable to think for ourselves and unable to remember that we do exactly as the Chief Inspector is suggesting week in, week out, for years at a time), so rang the Sergeant several times over the course of the evening conferring authority to keep the afternoon shift on. Nevermind that there was an overlapping evening shift that could quite adequately provide such a presence; it's a case of the more the merrier, and better to have too many staff on for nothing to happen, than too few for a major incident to occur. Plus he can take the credit if nothing goes wrong, for 'planning ahead'.

Having heard nothing at the agreed time, we head in 10 minutes before we're due to finish, one of our colleagues having gone around the entertainment area; spoken to door staff to ascertain numbers and having reported it back to the covering Sergeant that, actually, numbers in the clubs are quite low, and there really isn't any need for an 'overkill' police presence.

Since we are lowly public servants, and not permitted to use our judgement in any way whatsoever, someone gets in a car and drives around the entertainment district to see for themselves, leaving us in limbo with 5 minutes before the end of our shift not knowing whether or not to stay on. On returning, everyone is brought upstairs and told that, in fact, we ARE to stay on until at least 1.30 am, with us on static points in the entertainment area, and to report back every half hour as to volumes of people/cars etc. It's no surprise that he's keeping us on half an hour extra, it's not like that will cost the budget anything.

Utterly pissed off that we are told 5 minutes before finishing time that we are to stay on for another half hour, unpaid (since the first half hour over a planned finishing time is done for the Queen, grateful public saps that we are), we trudge out and ignore most anything likely to invoke a "ball of shit", or job that will tie us up with paperwork and (un)due process. 1.30am approaches and things seem to quieten down at our point. We report this via radio, yet the Sgt says it's still busy elsewhere and we should stay on until at least 2am. The sinking feeling sets in that supervision have every intention of keeping us until 3am, and thus a full 12 hour tour, just because senior management have, as usual, overreacted to a perfectly expected and manageable situation and have initiated the use of a 50 ton sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut. I expect a full firearms raid on a toy store for selling water pistols next.

At the end of my tether, I am really not in the mood when a fight breaks out across from us. Luckily a lot of us turn up (more than needed as usual, people will down tools to get to an 'adrenaline job') and people are sent packing without any lockups or messy assault allegations we are obliged to follow up on. Unfortunately two males decide to start taunting us and being aggressive, increasing in hostility when challenged. With a large crowd of people still around we can't really leave it, so, begrudgingly, I arrest one of them for s5 Public Order. As I do so, his mate kicks off and starts pushing at me. I pushed him back, and he nearly through, a shop window - luckily he bounced off it onto the pavement, as if he went through I'd have to mess around with boarding up and the associated paperwork - then rolled further onto the road. He gets locked up too. So now I've got two arrests on my hands, an hour and a half after my planned shift finishing time.

At custody they are bedded down and I'm told to write out £80 Fixed Penalty Notices for s.5 Public Order. Fixed Penalty Notices are, theoretically, on-the-spot fines for misdemeanours. Except they're not on-the-spot, as occasionally force policy will change (because if things stay the same for too long in the police then clearly something is wrong and management aren't being "innovative") and decide that we can't be trusted to do things like clear up small matters immediately without creating a large mountain of paperwork. The latest senior management bullsh... idea is to demand that each and every fixed penalty be accompanied by a crime report. Thus, s5 Public Order dealt with by fixed penalty becomes a sanctioned detction, pushing the stats up and resulting in someone who may never have been in trouble with the police before having a record created for them on the computer, and that record associated with being given a Fixed Penalty for s5. Since most s5's are usually violent, they'll end up with a violent marker on the computer as well, which will haunt them for the rest of their lives, even if that s5 moment was a one-off.

There are no crime report sheets left in the drawer, and I tell the custody Sgt that I am not going to fanny about finding any more crime report sheets when I'm heading towards a 14 hour shift and am 4 hours over my finishing time. He agrees and says that as long as I submit the crime reports when I'm next in. I leave, get home and type my resignation notice. It's printed, signed, ink drying and ready to be handed in. I'll probably wait a few days and cool down first.

2006-04-11T07:52:00.000Z

SOCPA - One hundred (and one) days on

Well, completely forgetting that yesterday was the 100th day anniversary since the introduction of SOCPA (it's not like I had it marked on a calendar or anything sad like that), I thought I'd give it a passing mention today.

Those who predicted the legislation would lead to a police state in which people were being led away in handcuffs for the most minor and trivial of offences have been proven to be quite wrong. Indeed, I can't recall any shouts on the radio for prisoner transport for people arrested for any offence other than those within the usual run that existed before the legislation.

There's a few possible reasons for this:

1. Most police aren't aware of the full extent of their new powers
2. The existing (pre s.110) arrest powers were and are sufficient for most jobs officers routinely encounter on the street
3. We self-police ourselves as regards the exercise of this power, insofar as the cost (financial, paperwork and resource) of arresting and processing someone for a misdemeanour offsets the legal entitlement to arrest if the arrest meets any of the 'necessary criteria'.

Arguably, though, some misdemeanours (s.5 Public Order) are more arrest-worthy than others (littering), leading to the argument - where do you draw the line on the gravity of offence to arrest for? What factors should be taken into account?

I'm tempted to try something to prove that third point and the above argument. I'll have a think about the viability of it over the next few days. Watch this space...

2006-04-10T20:03:00.000Z

Airwave - why a police scanner won't work anymore.

Most police forces in the country now use Airwave, which is provided by o2 and is a digital radio communication system. You can find out more here

Previously, most police forces used standard radio systems, which differed according to each force and which were not based on a national standard. These used to be scannable using a radio scanner, so you often had to talk in code. Furthermore, in a lot of forces, communication normally only occurred between the officer and the radio operator, unless a specific talk-through with other units was requested. So you couldn't hear what your colleagues were up to, if it sounded like they needed any backup etc.

Other problems with the old system were that you couldn't contact another officer's radio directly, and because the channels could be scanned, sensitive information about a job or people involved in a job had to be passed by mobile phone instead, a rather cumbersome method of doing things.

The new systems are digitally encrypted, which means they cannot be scanned or listened to unless you're on the network as well, so we can speak freely, without needing to use code, and sensitive information can be passed across the network. Additionally, the radio channels operate on a 'Group Talk' system, so everyone on a radio channel can hear all transmissions from patrols and the radio operators. This means you can hear what everyone else is up to, whether or not they're likely to need more patrols to their location and what sorts of jobs are ongoing. It's also useful if you ask for directions, as knowledgeable officers can just jump in to the transmission with the right way to get somewhere!

One of the problems with this system, though, is the increase in traffic. Forces structure their radio channels differently. Some, for example, will have one radio channel per subdivision or two, whilst others may have one channel per division for a particular type of department, such as CID or Response or Section/Area. Some also have separate channels for PNC checks. Problems arise with both of these systems. For the latter, on a Friday or Saturday night, a division which has a busy town or city centre will often require a lot of patrols to be in that area to attend jobs or provide backup, and that town or city centre often is its own subdivision. If there's a lot going on, it can sometimes be difficult to get on the air to update comms or do PNC checks. If all patrols allocated to that talk group are busy then either noone is allocated, or free patrols get pulled off other subdivisions, and thus talkgroups covering those subdivisions, creating resourcing issues.

Meanwhile, the problem with having one channel for the division for Response, another for Area/Sector, one for CID etc. is that if a major incident or pre-planned operation occurs on one channel it can often hog the airwaves for a considerable amount of time. Sometimes a new talkgroup will be opened specifically for that incident, other times it will be allowed to run on the original talkgroup. And, again, if a division contains a busy town/city centre, then the other subdivisions may not get a word in edgeways on a busy Friday/Saturday night, especially on the Response Channel. Meanwhile, the PNC channel gets jammed up with queues of officers waiting to check people across the division, and it can be irritating having to change channels to get different things done.

E.g: You as an Area Officer turn up to a job and speak to a potential offender. They're wanted on warrant but you don't know that yet. You have to:

1. Update Comms on the Area channel that you are there
2. Switch to the PNC channel and do a check
3. After finding out they're wanted, switch to the Response channel and request prisoner transport

Each time you switch channels you have to cancel reception of any ongoing traffic, type in the channel number and switch. Try doing this with a radio in one hand and a notebook or handcuffed person in the other!

One fantastic feature of the new Airwave system is the Point To Point feature. This allows you to contact anyone on the Airwave network, which effectively means anyone in the country, if you know their radio number. Just type it in and it acts as a private phone call between you and them. Brilliant for double-checking whether your colleague in the nick wanted Southern or BBQ sauce on their Subway, or your mate on duty in another force. More sensibly, you can use it to ask your supervisor for advice without tying up the main network doing so, or allow a lengthy update or report to be passed to the radio operator without taking up valuable air time.

The radios also allow telephony as well, so rather than asking to use a landline in someone's house or business premises you can use your radio to phone crime reports in, cancel credit cards and the like. It's monitored so that we don't get away with calls to family in Timbuktu at the taxpayer's expense. There's no perks left in this job I tell you!

All they need now is to be able to provide FM radio for those quieter moments in the shifts or when working on files and all will be well!

2006-04-04T17:19:00.000Z

The state we're in (a long one, but bear with us)

It's no surprise when you read stories like this that members of the public have, are and are continuing to lose faith in the police to look after them.

This is not helped by some forces taking the attitude that 'crime prevention is not our job', and that this area should be the sole responsibility of citizens; businesses; intiatives like Neighbourhood Watch and the trillion-and-one initiatives/partnerships that are set up.

Such an approach not only baffles the public, but would have Sir Robert Peel turning in his grave. After all, his first principle of the 9 Principles is that "The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder."

Unfortuantely, that the prevention of crime is now a low priority is not entirely the fault of the police. It's thanks to the government, and the press in their endless demand for crime figures to make headlines from. I'll elaborate shortly.

Instead of an organisation focused on preventing crime, the police as an institution is now focused on detecting crime, and specifically, crime that is flavour of the month for that particular force, in some cases to the exclusion or de-escalation of the prevention, investigation and detection of such crimes which are not all the rage at the moment.

Let's go through the above news story to highlight the flaws of today's policing system. This is not aimed at GMP in particular. Stories of this nature occur everday in forces across the country. Some are reported in the press, some are not. This one just happens to be on GMP's patch, and the force can't be blamed for what it did or didn't do. It was just collectively following orders.

Each force has what is known as "key crime areas". This translates to crimes that the force is being hammered for, and which they are keen to get on top of, and prioritise any investigation for. Look at any Force's strategy documents, and if you manage to stay awake, you'll eventually identify what their key crimes are. So, if you are a victim of crime and you report it as one of these key crimes, you can guarantee a good response and that your investigation will jump to the top of the queue. Often these key crimes are national anyway.

Leading on from this, forces, and divisions within forces, have 'detection targets'. This means they need to 'detect' a certain number of each type of crime over a set period. If the target is met, it's raised for the next period, which means that even more crimes of this type must be detected, usually within the same period (i.e a higher workload and more pressure). Because shit rolls downhill, everyone from Chief Constable down is under pressure to ensure that these targets are met. If the targets are met, the force, and by extension, the Home Office, and thus Tony Blair, gets good press as they're seen to be 'doing something' about crime.

The logical conclusion therefore is that crimes which are not measured in this way do not receive priority investigation, whilst those which will accrue towards the detections target will. If you are a victim of a crime which isn't a key crime, therefore, you'll just have to wait your turn. It isn't that your crime is any less serious or deserves any less attention, it just doesn't count towards the various divisional or force targets.

So to relate it to this story, Anti-Social Behaviour, in the form of Youths Causing Annoyance, is not a defined crime in and of itself. It could be defined as harrassment, if the offenders are known to the victim, or public order if the youths are REALLY causing problems ongoing as the police turn up, but generally speaking you can't do a Report of Crime for "Youths Causing Annoyance". Therefore, it's not a priority that police turn out, as they're busy working on existing crimes that count towards the detection target, or going to jobs that are likely to result in such crimes being investigated. Why go to a job which doesn't count towards your personal targets or the divisional targets when you can go to one that will get you a few extra ticks in the box? Those youths will always be around anyway so you can come back another time when you're less busy! Most officers, if they do turn up, will just shoo the youths away, result the job as "groups of youths advised and moved on, no offences" and drive off. And why not, it's not as if there's much more they can do!

Sure there's powers to disperse etc. if the area has such powers granted by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, but such powers take ages to put into effect. More often than not, the officers will arrive on scene of a YCA and, unless specific crimes have been committed, will be powerless to do much else other than ask the youths to go elsewhere. ASBOs are regularly breached and I personally think are not often worth the paper they're written on.

Now, combine this situation with NCRS, and you'll see why the two men in this story resorted to taking the law into their own hands, and why they were the ones who ended up being chewed up and spat out by the Criminal 'Justice' System.

NCRS is the National Crime Recording System, and requires that any reported incident likely to be a crime be 'crimed'. This means a crime report is taken and an investigation opened. The days when an officer could dismiss an allegation as a 'ball of shit' (ie absolutely facetious or without any foundation whatsoever) are long gone, and officers who fail to 'crime' something face disciplinary action and may even be sacked.
I've already had my fingers burnt on this one, when I refused to investigate an allegation of assault by a guy who claimed, after I had arrested him for burglary, that a very slight young lady had hit him in the face, causing bruising. Seeing no injuries or any marks whatsoever, I told him I would not be taking him up on that one and explained why. Some weeks later, I was called in to see C&D.

So, as stated before, with the YCA not being a crime in itself, NCRS doesn't come into play, and no officer is obliged to do much about YCA calls other than attend them if they're able to. Understandably, this makes the police look utterly incapable of doing anything about the problem, and to a certain degree that's true. For some youths there's nothing better some of us would like to do than get a few digs in, especially the cockier, gobbier ones, but losing our jobs just ain't worth it.

The two men in this story, quite rightly exasperated by the ongoing situation, ended up arming themselves to defend themselves and assaulted one of the youths. Now here is where the men fall foul of NCRS. Here they have committed two fully crimeable and investigatable offences - carrying an offensive weapon, and s.47 assault (according to the injuries in the article). I can't see much happening with the 'offensive weapons' crimes, but as soon as that youth reported the assault to police, the police were duty bound by NCRS to crime the assault and investigate it, regardless of the fact that the youth was probably one step removed from pond scum and had it coming to him. With s.47 assault usually being a key crime for most forces, there was probably pressure from above to get the offenders locked up ASAP.

Again, another example from personal experience. A grandmother came to our area from the other side of the country to visit family. Whilst her little grandson is asleep upstairs, youths congregate and throw stones at the windows of the house. Grandma comes outside to ask them to leave. The youths surround her and square up to her. Fearing for her safety, she pushes a couple to try and get back in to the house, causing them to fall over. Some of the youths beat her over the head with pool cues. When I take the statement from her in hospital, it's quite clearly self-defence, and this is backed up by family and several witnesses. She's too scared of reprisals to report assault so wants nothing done about it. Meanwhile, over the radio comes a message that one of the youths has turned up at the police station wanting to report an assault. Strictly speaking, someone should have taken the assault report by the youth and arrested the grandmother. Another officer and I made sure the log was written up so as to unequivocally state the grandmother was fully in fear of her safety, if not her life, and the act was wholly for self-defence. As it happened, no officer was free to listen to the youth's sob story, so diddums went home after the unsuccessful little self-indignant attempt to shaft someone who had the balls to stand up to them.

Getting back to the MEN story, our crap-for-brains youth is now officially a 'victim of crime' and deserving of all resources able to be allocated to its detection. Unlike the youths making hell for the citizens of Ramsbottom, the men who had the balls to try and do something about it (and god forbid DEFEND themselves against the little bastards) have committed crimes which are easily solvable and detectable, with the assault probably counting towards a detection target. So it makes life much easier for police to arrest and process the two men rather than focus on the youths. Result = Good Samaritans and good citizenry acts are dissuaded, the public are disgusted and fed up with the police, youths get the message that they truly are invincible and have the full power of the law to protect them whilst they cause havoc, and those who stand up to them will be punished.

There's nothing worse for job satisfaction and morale than taking a victim statement off a teenage worm, that you know full well makes residents of an area quake in their homes, resulting in you having to arrest and process an innocent member of the public who was just fed up of noone seeming to listen or care about their woes. You know this same 'victim' will abuse you the next time you turn up to yet another call of him and his mates causing trouble, yet you have no choice but to go through the motions and investigate the crime.

Some of the public get shocked by these stories - personally I just sigh and carry on - it's yet another example of the law weighted in favour of the offenders and the obssession with meeting stats and targets affecting the very same people that we as an institution are supposed to protect. As previously mentioned, stories like this are a regular occurrence across 'Great' Britain.

It's not all bad, though, for the detected crimes of 'offensive weapons' and 's.47 assault' will go on the stats sheets as 'detected' crimes, making police look like they're effective at detecting crime, which will improve crime stat trends overall, giving the Home Office good press and will generate positive publicity for New Labour and Tony Blair - 'tough on crime, tough on the victims of crime' - so they'll score a few more votes come election time. Thus, they'll end up with yet another mandate to fix the system so that this story can be repeated up and down the country on a regular basis until we end up with civil war. See, everybody wins!

2006-03-31T00:43:00.000Z

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!"

2006-03-28T01:08:00.000Z

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?!?!!

2006-03-27T13:36:00.000Z

Referral

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!

2006-03-23T19:42:00.000Z

What really grinds my gears...

...is 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!"

Or:

"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!

2006-03-23T17:07:00.000Z

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:

Do

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.

Don't:

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.

2006-03-18T10:05:00.000Z

Prejudice

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.

2006-03-15T16:35:00.000Z

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.

2006-03-15T08:51:00.000Z

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.

2006-03-14T10:12:00.000Z

"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.

2006-03-14T09:45:00.000Z

"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: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4799994.stm and here http://www.platinax.co.uk/news/13-03-2006/police-threaten-copper-bloggers/

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!

2006-03-09T13:28:00.000Z

Prioritisation

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!

2006-03-05T12:08:00.000Z

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.

2006-02-27T15:40:00.000Z

Another ones bites the dust

World Weary Detective has now closed down as well. Us bloggers are having to take greater steps to ensure our anonymity. For those writing blogs or those thinking of starting one, here's some tips:

1. Don't be specific - this applies to where you work; your rank, role and length of service; names and places of people you have dealt with etc. This should really be common sense
2. Posting immediately after a shift probably isn't the best idea if you then describe the shift you've been on or a job you've attended.
3. Don't use your own e-mail address for the blog
4. Be careful when commenting on new policy - it may be specific to your Force and will give the game away. National stuff is more than fair game!
5. Be careful if you tell colleagues about your blog - you don't know who they may tell, and who is pally with people in C&D...

Going, going, gone...

Brian's Brief Encounters has now been taken down, and I'll be removing the link and adding Blue's and Two's link when I get round to updating the template, which should be tomorrow.

For those who are wandering why these blogs are going, it is because supervision, Complaints & Discipline/Internal Affairs, or both, are catching wind of these blogs and are somehow identifying those behind it. The "catch all" offence of "bringing the force into disreputre" is usually levelled at those involved, in spite of very few of us actually stating which force we work in! How can you bring a force into disrepute if noone knows what force that is?!?!?

Since these blogs reveal what ACTUALLY goes on behind the glossy, PR-friendly corporate image put across by most forces, and threatens to actually inform the public as to what police officers do, the ties that bind us and why we're consequently not always able to respond immediately to a report of youths causing annoyance, the 'unofficial spokespeople' of frontline rank-and-file officers, and of the trials and tribulations being the lowest on a big food chain entails, are 'the enemy' of public relations.

We're also the enemies of performance management, the Key Performance Indicators we're under pressure to meet and the various other bureaucratic instruments implemented to monitor how police 'perform' (in spite of the fact that efforts are then made to meet such indicators purely for the sake of meeting them, whilst other aspects of police work that aren't measured, such as actually patrolling, are neglected in the meantime), since these blogs show such things actually exist and that we are under pressure to meet them. Certain authorities would rather this not be common knowledge, although a couple of pertinently-worded Freedom Of Information Requests by the correct press outlets to the correct institutions could settle that.

These blogs also go against the idea of all officers singing from the same hymn sheet and adhering to the collection of corporate buzzwords, nonsenical management speak and phrases that adhere to their own inner logic which form the various vision statements, mission statements and charters for whatever the theme flavour of the month is. Some of the public, and indeed some authorities, may be horrified that some officers would be so bold as to state why we're not always to do what people think we can do 24/7. I would prefer to think that the public would appreciate knowing the real reasons behind such restrictions.

2006-02-23T10:12:00.000Z

New TV show

The title: "Girl Cops"

The blurb:

"Assaults, domestics, and lost parrots are all part of a police officer's lot.

Where Girl Cops differs is the time spent off as well as on the beat.

Witness the daily lives of the quick witted, commanding, feisty and cheerful women police officers of Greater Manchester Police, and find out what makes them tick.

Humorous and heartfelt, Girl Cops takes an honest look at what it takes to be a successful working woman today"

The picture:

Which begs the question - is this programme going to be a serious portrayal and insight into life as a female police officer, both on and off duty, and the challenges as they face balancing their work lives with their personal lives, or with such a 'dumbed down' title, TV Week-friendly blurb and a "chorus line" photo, should this show be received as merely light entertainment at the expense of the hard-working officers involved? You decide.

Apparently it's on next Monday at 8.30pm on Beeb One.

2006-02-14T11:21:00.000Z

Yet another officer shot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4711268.stm

I hope she makes a full and speedy recovery.

One day the decision makers will accept that even though they refuse to routinely arm officers, more and more offenders are choosing to routinely arm themselves anyway, so the argument that "if we arm officers then more offenders will arm themselves" finally seems to be breaking down and a review of which PPE officers carry needs to be carried out. I'm happy to carry a Taser - still able to confront most people, even those carrying firearms, but without your career and life on hold when you actually do discharge it.

That said, even if Tasers or firearms were issued to every officer, some forces wouldn't be able to pay for the equipment or training anyway!

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/204/204375_200_police_jobs_face_axe.html

2006-02-12T17:10:00.000Z

Where has all the time gone?

Apologies for not updating much lately. It would seem all the cases I've been involved in that have gone to court have had trial dates set for February and March! I've had two so far and have several more coming up! Will post something soon!

2006-02-01T13:53:00.000Z

Have a read!

David Copperfield, in his latest entry, links to an article titled "24/7 Response Policing in the Modern Police Organisation: A View from the Beat."

His article and the report are definatly worth a read. Doubt it'll make much difference, or that the main service users of the police are going to read it and think "Ah, now I understand why my trivial domestic with my wife over who let the cat out hasn't received an immediate response, I shall cut them some slack and lay off in future", but it identifies the issues we all face and are demoralised by.

It's a proud accomplishment round our parts if an officer's outstanding crime queue is down to a single page. One poor colleague booked off at 6pm on a Saturday, and came in at 9am on the Sunday to find 10 more crimes allocated to their queue - someone, in a bout of drunken stupidity, had walked down a street and kicked a few cars - no damage, just a small amount of scuffing. A particularly overzealous officer, who was probably not from the division nor would have to do the follow up enquiries, submitted 10 crime reports for 'further investigation'. I don't think I'll be seeing my colleague for a few weeks as he goes to chase up statements from the owners of the vehicles; checks CCTV and copies the vehicle information 5 times over on several different forms. Meanwhile, most owners of the vehicles either wouldn't have noticed the scuffing nor would have even considered reporting it, yet they'll still be quite bewildered when an officer turns up on their doorstep saying "I appreciate you don't want to do anything, but I need to take a statement to prove that anyway because my word isn't good enough on the update page". The joys of NCRS!

Meanwhile, he won't be meeting his PIs and will get pulled up for it in between writing progress reports on update pages consisting of "Tried to contact IP, not at home for two weeks" thanks to arbitrary progress report deadlines for each crime. At least he hasn't had progress report deadlines requested during his annual leave, which has been known to happen before!

"PC Smith, you're crime queue is horribly out of date. What's your excuse?"
"Sorry sarge, I was in Brazil at the time for 2 weeks, and my distance from the station, combined with my failure to attempt to think about the job or my workload whilst on holiday, are the reasons for my tardiness. Won't happen again - my bed and all personal possessions are being moved into the writing room as we speak".

Not to mention the new 'positive action on assault allegations' policy... Retractions? That's not in the spirit of 'proactiveness' !

2006-01-26T22:38:00.000Z

I didn't say it, HE did!

Some of you may remember the little storm in the teacup that occurred a few months back when an RTA victim, describing the offending driver, used the word 'fat'.

Story was here - http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/177/177713_pcs_warning_for_mum_who_said_fat.html

Now, all this hoo-haa could have been avoided quite simply taking the statement as normal, but using quotation marks for "offending" words (see what I did there? Clever innit!), so as to completely exonerate the officer from committing the offence of "causing eyebrows to be raised".

Generally speaking, when taking statments, police officers will run through with the person what's going to go into the statement BEFORE writing it, get the story chronologically and factually correct and relevant, then write it. There's a good reason for this. If an officer wrote down exactly what the person says, the result would be out of sequence and would look something like this:

"I was walking down the road at 2300 hours when I was approached by a male, who struck me on the head in an unprovoked attack. I got up and ran after the male, who made off towards Smith Street. The force of the punch caused me to fall to the ground. I didn't suffer any injuries. I cannot describe the male at all. Actually it might have been Smith Street, I can't remember - might have been John Street".

Another way of doing it would be to write down EXACTLY what the person giving the statement is saying, verbatim, to completely ensure no paraphrasing using the officer's own terminology has occurred.

Sometimes an officer may doubt what the person is saying, but they have to include it anyway, as the statement is a sworn declaration of facts according to the person in whose name it is. This is illustrated by a conversation I remember having with particularly unfortunate gentlemen about an incident that was being statemented:

"What was the height of the men who attacked you?"
"About 4"2
"You definately sure they were 4"2?"
"Positive"
"Do you know how high 4"2 actually is? Bear in mind that this WILL be going in your statement which will be read out in court"
"Pretty sure"
"Fair enough. Ok, so which Hobbit landed the first punch?"

This was followed by the equally bizarre conversation as to how long the attack lasted:

"So how long did the attack last for, from start to finish?"
"About 15 minutes"
"Are you sure?"
"Positive"
"So you were attacked for 15 minutes non-stop by three 4"2 males who punched and kicked you in the head repeatedly, and all you've got by way of injuries is slight bruising to the left cheekbone?"
"That's how it went"
"Have you ever been cross-examined before?"
"Nope"
"It'll be... an experience for you"

Many statements also require the inclusion of "Turnbull Rules", derived from the case of R v Turnbull. These are usually tacked on to the end and include answers to:

How long did the witness have the accused under observation?
At what distance?
In what light?
Was the observation impeded in any way, as for example by passing traffic or a press of people? Had the witness ever seen the accused before?
How often?
If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused?
How long elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police?

I've yet to statement anyone who observed the accused for five seconds six miles away in the darkness through a telescope in heavy traffic for the first time.

2006-01-22T16:23:00.000Z

Police Subscription service

From the previous post about 'personal police officers' I've daydreamed a police 'subscription' service, whereby paying different levels of 'premiums' (to compare it to the world of insurance) affords you different levels of police cover. I'm not seriously suggesting this ever would or should happen (and it wouldn't work either, for reasons at the end).

The Citizen Protection Package
Payments: Ordinary taxation, no extra contributions

Cover afforded
----------------
1. Public 999 number for life-threatening and emergency calls
2. Public non-emergency number for non-urgent calls and incident reporting
3. Police response according to availability of patrols and priority of incident compared to other incidents already in and requiring allocation.
4. Standard investigative procedures adminstered for victims of crime
5. Standard victim support and witness liaison services
6. Access on demand to crime prevention advice

Ideal for: The vast majority of people who have little cause or reason to involve or interact with the police on a regular basis

The “I can’t control any aspect of my life, please do it for me” package
Payments: £5000 monthly, plus cost of any extra modules

Cover afforded
---------------
1. Public 999 number for life-threatening and emergency calls
2. Public non-emergency number for non-urgent calls and incident reporting
3. Private 24/7 ‘general enquiries’ line, for advice from trained/bored (delete as appropriate) professionals on how to keep the baby quiet in the middle of the night; how to control the kids and techniques for getting back in the house when you’ve locked yourself out. Alleviates pressure on the 999 service.
4. Police response according to availability of resources
5. Guidebook on increasing response times to your job – helpful tips such as including the phrases “he’s got a knife/gun”; “they’re threatening to kill me and I think they mean it!” or “there’s 100 people fighting and they’ve got weapons!” with no penalty charge incurred when the units arrive and realise you’re a lying fraud.
6. Private 24/7 transport request service – dial this number if you need a lift to the shops down the road and can’t be bothered walking, if there is a free patrol nearby they’ll swing past and pick you up. This service is not guaranteed
7. Standard investigative procedures administered for victims of crime – target demographic are rarely victims, just clueless, and thus need no extra cover
8. Standard victim support and witness liaison services – same reason as above
9. Free crime prevention advice dispensed with general advice on how to live life

Extra modules available
-----------------------------

1. Child rearing services, for those times when you just can’t control the little blighters! £100 a month or £2,000,000 for us to take them off your hands permanently, whilst you get back to Trisha repeats on ITV 45
2. Resolution service – in an argument with the spouse or neighbour? Our trained negotiators will come round and help sort it out without the bloodshed involved of doing it yourself. Why learn basic social communication skills when someone else can do it for you? £500a month for a neutral negotiator, £1000 if you want them to always side with you. No matter too trivial or pathetic.

Ideal for: Those who simply lack any life skills; problem solving ability or communication prowess, always finding themselves unable to cope with any situation or confrontation, and who will dial the three 9s if they spill a pint of milk.

The “Get me the copper I dealt with last time, right here, right now” package
Payments: £74999.99 a month plus cost of any extra modules (previously known as the 'Arrogant Tosser' package)

Cover afforded
--------------------
1. Private police officer, who is contactable 24/7 by phone, fax, pager, e-mail, personal alarm and carrier pigeon, and will drop whatever they’re doing to attend to your every whim and desire
2. Consistency of service as the officer knows your entire life history and criminal interactions
3. Immediate investigations carried out by a dedicated staff of CID Officers especially trained in investigating minor allegations of assault way below their remit.
4. Immediate response from aforementioned private officer, who will arrive in a marked vehicle with blues and twos, risking life and limb, even if you’re just reporting a jarred pinky finger or one of your kids is making you cross - it's all about making our customers feel loved
5. The right to make a spurious allegation against someone in order to have them immediately arrested by your personal officer. Even if nothing comes of it the allegation and you know it, you'll feel better with the power and control!
6. Sympathy for your plight from all concerned, at least whilst you’re in earshot
7. Get out of jail free card – single use only
8. The right to say “I pay your wages” to certain officers
9. The right to say “I know officer xxxx” and actually mean it

Extra modules available
---------------------------------

IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION – one off payment of £50 million. Confers on one the absolute unqualified right to say “I ain’t dun nuffin’” if arrested, and to expect officers to take notice of the normally glib claim

1. C&D tipoff line – Now the phrase “I’ll have your job” takes on a whole new meaning – for just £3499 a month you can get immediate access to a C&D officer, who, upon hearing your grievance, will automatically attend the scene/station you’re at and will fire the offending officer on the spot! No evidence or other side of the story required. Our new and improved service means that intoxication is no longer a bar to being taken seriously!

Ideal for: Those who believe the police to be at their beck and call, and who demand the same officer to deal with them, irrespective of their workload. The self-righteously indignant who believe the world and all services owe them a living, and woe betide if something doesn’t happen exactly according to their preferences and there’s blame to be apportioned.

NB: Unless one has the C&D cover, one automatically impliedly accepts that officers will sneer about you behind your back after they've dealt with your 35th callout that day.

=================================================================

The system will, of course, be deliberately structured so as those most likely to abuse the service can’t afford the level that suits them best. Ironically, it’s the same people who are most likely to use them! After all, those additional costs that the increased services people demand/expect has to come from somewhere!

So, in the end, everyone ends up using the standard service anyway, but those most likely to use the other options expect the same level of cover from the standard package. Meanwhile, those who genuinely need the service, and can afford to pay for the different levels of cover, don’t see the need as they rarely need to speak to the police. Thus when they are actually innocent victims of crime, they have to fight for attention amongst the myriad of jobs involving trivial neighbour disputes. Such is the world we live in!

2006-01-22T12:15:00.000Z

Members of the Public REALLY annoy you when...

Feel free to add to this list!

...you arrive at the job they've phoned in, which is a Grade 3, has no witnessess, is not particularly urgent and they snap "Well YOU took your time!" - that's AFTER you've explained there's 3 of you on to cover the area and the jobs are stacking up!

...you see those same people drunk outside a club you're outside on point duty, who then come up to you and say "Haven't you cops got anything better to do?" The temptation to arrest out of pure spite is at times overwhelming!

...whilst in the middle of hearing the results from a PNC check they approach you and ask a stupid question very loudly, preventing you from hearing the rest of the transmission.

...when struggling with an offender, they stand by the side, then when you've restrained the offender will ask "Are you busy?", followed up by a ridiculous question irrespective of your answer. No, of course I'm not busy, this guy is my fellow artiste and we're putting on a bit of street theatre for your general amusement and to alleviate our boredom. These are the same people who are likely to ask RTC victims suffering visible and horrific injuries "Are you alright?"

...simple directions of "up there on the left" are simply too much to comprehend. "What, up there? On the left? Which side of the road? How far up? Is it going to be open? What time does the bus leave? Can you raise my children for me?"

...you get told by them to smile at a particularly serious job. If I wanted to damn well smile I would be doing so - I could tell you to stop inflicting your vacuous opinions on the police use of the zygomatic major, but you don't see me doing that do you? I'd smile if I did tell you that though!

...you get phone calls from those you've previously interacted with as aggrieved persons or witnesses, asking you to deal with their latest woe. Apologies, you don't get a personal police officer with your normal taxes - you have to pay extra (now THERE'S a thought for a post!)

...upon arrest, people assert that by virtue of having some sort of alleged and tenuous link with another police officer, they should be dearrested and compensated. In one particular arrest I remember the detainee asserted a link with a particular DCI in the force. Fed up to the back teeth, one officer brought up the online directory search, typed in the name of the officer and printed out the '0 Results found' and handed it to the detainee. He was very quiet after that.

I sometimes try to think what must be going through (what passes for) the minds of those who make this cliched claim - maybe they imagine the 'connected' officer bursting through to the custody suite, in full cape and tights, demanding the release of this innocent citizen whom he personally can vouch to be the utmost pillar of respect, integrity and honesty.

2006-01-11T15:36:00.000Z

ADVICE FOR COURT ATTENDANCE - PART 1 - NOT ACTUALLY IN THE COURTROOM

1. Bring a book - if your case is listed for 9.15am you can bet it'll either be adjourned or will be heard about midday (see below). There's only so many times you can read through your statement and PNB entry without falling asleep. A John Grisham novel or "Single & Single" by John Le Carre are good reads, and have the added bonus of potentially winding up lawyers!

2. Bring food - if you're lucky, the court building may have a canteen, or at least a newsagents nearby. If you're unlucky, it's got bugger all. Sod's law though says if you get food after waiting around for an hour and a half, you will get called just after you've paid for the hot (soon to be frozen) toastie.

3. Be prepared to be called in on a rest day - the CPS have been known to ignore what you've put on the availability matrix and call you in when you're meant to be off. The only positive is you're getting paid for not doing a great deal. If you're a Special, you should get remunerated for time off work. If you're a student Special and missing lectures, that's just tough.

4. Don't try and remember the job beyond your PNB and statement - it happened months back, you thought nothing of it at the time and probably put the bare minimum in your PNB (after which the whole job was immediately forgotten about), safe in the knowledge that there was no way it would EVER get to court stage!

5. Don't be surprised if people turn up - this can range from the victim of the crime, to the accused and even to the defence or the prosecution counsel, leading to the adjournement or later-than-planned hearing. CPS have also been known to ask police officers to chase up victims who haven't turned up when they should have done - now THAT'S what I call service!

Feel free to add more, and I'll put "Part 2 - IN THE COURTOOM" up shortly.

2006-01-07T00:05:00.000Z

SOCPA - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act - the wha?!?!?

As the clock struck midnight on 01.01.06, new police powers came into force, under the guise of Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) 2005, which rewrote Section 24 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

We can now arrest for ANY offence, as long as we can justify the arrest as necessary under one or more of several criteria. Those criteria are pretty much the same as Section 25 of the old PACE with a couple of extra criteria added. These are:

(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;
(c) to prevent the person in question-
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

Our force have been kind enough to either not bother training us yet, even after the date for the new Act to come into force has passed, or provide bugger all training on it. Having fallen into the former category and heard those who have been trained describe it as stated above, I've had to muddle through one of the biggest changes in police powers in quite some time, entirely on my own.

I've had three lockups under the new powers thus far. The first one was just after midnight, and fortunately was for a job that occurred off our patch, so a quick arrest statement and PNB writeup was all that was needed. Having had no idea what the new Act involves, and not having had the chance to speak to other officers yet, I copied my reasons for the arrest directly from the wording above, and didn't elaborate. The arrest was accepted, probably because all involved were just as confused as I was!

The second one was a simple D&D in which the offender decided that keeping silent, having no ID on him and glaring at the person he wanted to beat seven bells out of would result in us letting him go out of exasperation. Again, a few extra lines on the statement, in the PNB and on the MG5 were the sum total of the new Act's impact in this case - a simple 'necessary to ascertain details and to prevent the offender from harming others' sufficed.

The third one was for shoplifting - this one could probably have been dealt with by summons, but with us being able to justify most arrests now on the grounds of 'necessary for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence so evidence could be obtained by questioning' - it's a nice little catch all. Plus the offender had about 5 pages of previous, among which "Failing to appear" featured prominently, so a summons would have been pointless. Until the courts say otherwise, I'll put good money on "obtain evidence by questioning" being the main reason for most arrests!

Of course, 'necessary' is also very subjective, and can also be used as a get-out as well as a get-in reason for arrests. Sometimes circumstances mean that arrests aren't anywhere near as necessary half an hour before the end of shift, compared to the necessity that arises at the start of a shift, on a rainy day when it's cold and the jobs coming in are petty and trivial. Summonses, which can usually be completed at leisure, will suddenly become far more attractive than the reams of paperwork that accompany many lockups, that threaten to take an officer far over their finishing time.

So will this Act actually help or hinder the upholding of the law? Well with the concept of 'upholding the law' already shot to pieces by over-auditing and arbitrary bureaucracy, I'd imagine it'll just cloud things even more until the police provide proper, comprehensive training and the Courts start having a say on things!

2006-01-02T14:35:00.000Z

Assault by Door Staff

If you believed every drunken reveller who reports an assault by a door supervisor to the police, you would think that licensed premises in Britain employ inhuman monsters, with tempers as short as the skirts of many of the girls, and fists as ready as guys who chat the girls up. Pubs and clubs are a veritable battleground, in which the gatekeepers of the door engage in constant and unprovoked battles with innocent men and women, sober as magistrates, who just want to get in for a good night out. Incapable of even so much as the thought of uttering an expletive, these hapless victims of power-tripping door supervisors are regularly assaulted for even so much as looking in the direction of these evil burly beasts, who wouldn't hesitate to eject you from a club using more force on you than a fighter pilot executing a high-G turn, for such heinous offences as looking at them in the wrong way, or laughing slightly too loudly, or will refuse to let you in if you have the wrong face, pushing you flat onto your back for added measure.

And as for the role of the police in this...

...well again, according to these poor, innocent, defenceless people, the police are in league with the devil and the door supervisors. Refusing to override the door supervisor's decision to refuse entry or to eject someone is simply unacceptable and is abuse of power and privelige by the officer. Upon arriving at the scene and hearing only the side of the story that utters forth from the fine upstanding citizen's lips, police should immediately arrest the offending door supervisor for attempted murder; ensure they are locked in a cell for a very long time; confer rights of free entry, queue-jumping and priority access to the bar upon the aggreived person and offer an immediate apology for the actions of the door staff. After all, it IS a police matter, and the reveller DOES pay the wages of the officer in full, thereby being exempt, by implied right, of any repercussions that may have arised from any wrongdoing which caused them to be ejected or refused entry into the premises in the first place. Of course, that's a moot point anyway, since the reveller is incapable of any wrongdoing, past, present of future - any police action against them is illegal and unjust, and they were clearly set up by corrupt officers who beat them to within an inch of their life.

The reality, as anyone will know, is often quite different.

Many, many allegations of door staff are made on Friday and Saturday nights, forming a large number of the jobs and incidents, with a token few during the week just to keep officers on their toes. The report is investigated when there's free resources, and upon checking CCTV (if there is any), getting both sides of the story and 5 seconds of observing the language and behaviour of the complainant, the result is often radioed up as "lawful ejection, no offences" - this translates as: "The complainant has been a drunken idiot having done (insert drunkenly aggressive or stupid thing here), resulting in them being ejected/refused entry into the premises. To try and get their own back and attempt to get in anyway, they've feigned an assault to involve the police, aiming to scare the door supervisor into letting them in or for the police to reverse the decision."

Police aren't door staff - it's not their decision, nor should it be, as to who does and who doesn't go into a club, or who should or who shouldn't be ejected. There's a variety of reasons for this - not being bankrolled by the club in question, and having higher priorities are just two that spring to mind. However, the hard-done-by reveller who has been lawfully ejected often fails to realise this - collar numbers are entered into mobile phones and the ends of careers are vowed. The same people then wake up the next day having forgotten all about the night before, and wondering what the hell this strange number is in their phone.

There is no denying that there are some door staff who are overzealous, too physical, or both, and assaults, some of them serious, do occur. Those who commit these offences ARE arrested and dealt with accordingly. Furthermore, door supervisors can be held accountable to a variety of organisations, including the door company the work for, the premises which contracts the company to run the door, the SIA (Security Industry Authority, the body responsible for licensing and training security personnel) and the licensing unit of the local area and police force. People who genuinely feel hard done by should write in and complain, with as much information and evidence of the incident to support their claim. If, however, the decision is made that the incident is a 'lawful ejection', and the allegations of assault are unfounded, then blowing up at officers or door supervisors is not the most productive method of airing the grievance, it is also a sure-fire way to end up in a cell or with a fine! Go home, calm down, sleep and you’ll feel better the next day!

2005-12-22T22:13:00.000Z

AND SO IT BEGINS

Hi one and all!

This little corner of the Internet will be devoted to my thoughts; insights; ramblings; rants and whatever other words you choose to use, about the small glimpse into the world of policing as I see it.

A little bit about myself - I am a police officer in a large city somewhere in the UK. I've been doing it for a number of years now, and have worked with a number of departments; stations; operations; reliefs and officers during that time.

Whilst there are other policey-type blogs out there, written by both Regulars and Specials, each author has varying levels of experience, perspectives and opinions, formed from the areas they work in, the jobs they've deal with and the people with whom they interact, no matter who the author is. Thus everyone has something different and interesting to say. THAT'S what celebrating diversity is all about - and one doesn't need a two day course to tell you that!