Real Policing

Johnno.   

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2008-04-22b.1284.12&s=speaker%3A11245#g1284.13

I must begin by offering my sincere apologies for the lack of blogging over the last few months.  I confess I’ve had no real appetite for writing.  I wouldn’t wish to waste anyone’s time with drivel or portray myself as an authority on all things policing, which I certainly am not.  Furthermore, systemic failings within the justice system are ongoing and merely a variation on a theme, the causes of which have been illustrated ad infinitum on police blogs countrywide.  I would like to think that, even in its smallest measure, the information provided by this website has broadened public understanding of the reasons why the current system of policing is no longer adequate and how a lack of understanding, interest and long-term commitment by successive Home Secretaries has led to quick wins and fatuous short term measures.  Only with a detailed understanding of the complexities of policing and a committed personal interest in police reform can the trend of the last forty years be reversed.  I have made every effort to facilitate a greater awareness among opposition MPs regarding the problems a lack of understanding and long-term commitment to law and order have caused.  Therefore, I believe any obligation I took it upon myself to accept has been fulfilled as far as possible within the realm of what can be achieved by one person of inconsiderable means.         

All that’s left for me to do is thank you all for your kindness and support of the Real Policing petition and also the personal messages of encouragement you have sent me during the past year.  The petition itself closes this Sunday evening, 30th March, 2008, at midnight.  Shortly after I shall submit the petition for presentation to Ministers.  I also wish to thank all the officers with whom I trained and served for their professionalism, intergrity and fortitude despite a lack of support from senior officers more preoccupied with satisfying central diktats than supporting front line officers and protecting the public.  Never again should officious Whitehall micro management of the police be considered acceptable particularly in light of the propensity of senior officers to exercise little resistance.  If Chief Constables are to be answerable to anyone let it be those who truly have a stake in the policing of their local communities.  I know very little about local accountability but I believe it may sit better with us all knowing that Chief Constables and Commissioners are accountable to the many rather than the few.  Furthermore, the success of local accountability depends upon us, the stakeholders, holding senior officers accountable.

A more immediate cause for concern is what the Government is going to do with what remains of our police force.  It’s true that 90% of what a police officer does can indeed be done by someone else.  Any jack-of-all-trades officer run ragged and bogged down will tell you that.  The question is, what is essentially a task for an officer to complete and what isn’t?  Undoubtedly, it will also be cheaper to pay someone less than a police officer to complete the same task.  However, it again comes down to the issue of quantity over quality.  The role of the constable ought to be considered with as much regard to providing quality and efficiency of service as financial expediency and value for money.  It is essential that an operational officer has a broad understanding of the various stages of the investigative process.  While that doesn’t justify leaving absolutely everything to the officer to do, it is necessary that they know how their actions, or lack thereof, may prejudice the outcome of an investigation.  If rampant civilianising is the way forward (or the way back) it does beg the question how will refocussing the role of constable and potentially reducing their knowledge base improve the quality of service to the public?  If there is no necessity for an officer to know something which is no longer their responsibility then so be it but how far is it wise to go?  Ultimately, keeping boots on the ground for the maximum amount of time to deter and reassure is the solution to the problem.  Will prospective reform proposals change merely that which needs to be changed in order to achieve such a simple objective or will we inherit a new set of problems as a result of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?          

“If the current laws on confiscation from under-age drinkers prove inadequate, I will consider the case for new legislation to make it clear that we do not want to see children drinking in public.” 

Stern words indeed from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on BBC Breakfast today.  Her riposte to the issue of underage street drinking left me wondering whether or not she is familiar with Section 155 of the Licensing Act 2003, Section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 or even the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 which already confer on a constable the power to confiscate alcohol from juveniles in a public place.  In addition, I wondered whether she had taken the trouble to contact individual forces to establish if and how frequently planned operations are carried out by officers designated to deal with underage drinking. 

Had the Home Secretary contacted Sussex police she would have been interested to learn about Operation Quartz in Hove on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday night.  On each of these days two officers begin their night tour of duty at 7pm instead of 11pm during which time they trawl the streets proactivley targetting underage drinkers.  If in the unlikely event officers are able to deal with boozing young miscreants (as they are often diverted to an unresourced immediate incident due to a lack of available units) they routinely confiscate alcohol, whether or not the container has been opened.  If they are able to ascertain from where the alcohol was purchased they may pay the establishment a visit.  Officers do not routinely state under which power they have seized the alcohol and (contrary to what the Home Secretary has stated) the seizure requires no anticedent of anti-social behaviour.  The alcohol is then booked into the police station property store before being disposed of.  A letter is sent home to the juvenile’s parents and any establishment involved reported to the local licensing board. 

Two officers dedicated to this task for four hours three times per week is woefully inadequate given the scale of the problem and particularly as these officers are often taken off the task and redeployed to unresourced incidents.  Many towns and cities also have designated exclusion zones which provide officers with the power to confiscate alcohol from any person.   In terms of the responsibility of the police to address the problem of underage drinking it is not the laws which are inadequate but the numbers on the ground in a position to enforce the powers they already have.  The Home Secretary cannot disregard this fact and believe the answer lies in broadening the powers of not entirely disempowered officers.

In respect of Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s eagerly awaited end of review report due out tomorrow, I understand that among the proposals is the blanket issuing to officers of a palm pilot computer known as a Blackberry.  The Blackberry is intended to assist officers on the street in carrying out Police National Computer (PNC) checks and voters register checks on detained persons.  It is far from certain that officers will welcome the introduction of Blackberrys as a means by which to expedite stop checks/stop & searches.  Furthermore, such a proposal also overlooks the radio technology officers currently possess. 

Indeed, the beauty of officers’ radios is that they can pass details over the airwaves much quicker than they would tinkering away on a Blackberry which requires inputting the information before it is processed and relayed back to the officer.  Passing the information over the radio allows the officer to maintain eye contact with the detained person (who is hostile more often than not) and also allows the officer to carry out a stop & search while the radio controller processes the information relayed by the officer.  The use of a Blackberry entails breaking eye contact which can have disasterous consequences particularly if an officer is patrolling alone.  For relaying and receiving information expeditiously they have their radios.  For recording information they have their pocket note books and pens.  Having spoken to four serving officers regarding this proposal they asked the following:  From where will the money come?  Where will I put the Blackberry as there’s no room left on my utility belt?  What happens if after breaking eye contact to input information the detained person makes off, assaults me or kicks the Blackberry (an expensive piece of kit) out of my hands? Will the CPS prosecute for criminal damage?  What’s wrong with what I already have?  

The wait for the fifth review of policing in eight years is almost over.  Time will tell whether or not it was worth it.  

The stop & search form provides a record to a person detained for the purpose of a search based on a suspect description, suspicious behaviour or actions, or other intelligence.  The information and analysis of a force’s stop & search records is reviewed by police authorities and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.  The form is also understood to safeguard ethnic minorities against discriminatory police tactics and prevent the stopping and searching of individuals on the basis of race alone.  In truth, completion of an obligatory form will not prevent a police officer from stopping and searching an individual on the basis of race although it does compel the officer to state which statutory power he/she has used to justify the stop & search and the grounds for doing so.  Such grounds may be the subject of dispute if a complaint against the officer is made.  Therefore, the grounds for search are important considerations regardless of the searched person’s race.  

It is worth noting that a person is under no obligation to provide their name and address to a police officer for the purpose of a search.  During completion of the stop & search form the detained person classifies their ethnicity alongside the officer’s perception of their ethnicity.  The detainee is then asked to confirm the descriptive details and sign the record to verify they have received a copy although they are under no obligation to do so.  If, as in the majority of cases, the detained person chooses not to take a copy of the search record they can present themselves at the officer’s station within a year of the date of search to obtain their copy.  In such cases it is not uncommon for officers to take details to complete the form back at the station for intelligence purposes with no real likelihood that the searched person will present themselves within a year for their copy.  Where the form is completed at the roadside there are those who will gleefully tear it up in front of the officer or screw it into a ball and throw it in the nearest bin.  The fact that corners have begun to be cut, particularly when searching large groups of people (which presents practical problems completing several forms on the street, see “When Tricks Are No Treat, November 2007) suggests that a more efficient form of good practice must be established. 

It is also worth noting that other developed countries of a mixed ethnic composition have no equivalent of a stop & search form.  As a result, it is a question of some debate whether ethnic minorities in those countries feel more vulnerable and less protected as a result and whether, conversely, ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom feel less vulnerable and better protected for the form’s existence.  The question remains whether it is necessary that the information gathered during a stop & search procedure should result in a foot long form which takes too much time, both on and off the street, to complete.  Furthermore, it is entirely feasible that the information can be captured using more efficient means which will not result in a loss of information.  As for the Government’s initiative of palm pilots or similar devices of technological wizardry it is still wide of the mark, overlooks the technology which officers already have and leaves one wondering from where will the money come?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=THU21044LKVNHQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/30/nsearch330.xml
 

An anon officer. 

Johnno,

I work within one of the country’s busiest Prisoner Processing Units.  The post is such that, due to the intensity of our workload, most officers move elsewhere after a year or so.  The majority of vacancies left by those who have chosen to move on have remained unfilled.  As with a great majority of frontline positions we simply manage with the numbers who remain.  This places enormous pressures on those of us left to deal with those detained in custody on a day to day basis.  Our unit recently experienced one of the busiest weekend periods ever, which resulted in several overnight detainees.  We were assisted by our area’s CID without whom we would have simply struggled to cope.  We are forced to return many prisoners back to our uniform colleagues who are already working with little or no staff.

I understand that my particular force is barely recruiting any regular officers, whilst the intake of PCSOs remains an immediate priority, as they fill positions on Community Safer Neighbourhood Teams.  Whilst this may look good on paper it leaves those officers within posts such as mine overwhelmed with work.  We are fast approaching 2008, and as I see it our workload has almost doubled, and yet our staffing levels have fallen.  Something simply doesn’t add up.  Those of us who are employed on units such as mine are operating at saturation point. Something has to change and I for one admire a couple of Chief Constables who have recently spoken out.  Any with an ounce of common sense would realise that the ‘Thin Blue Line’ is at Saturation Point!

On an entirely separate note my force now operates a new clocking in system.  It only allows a tolerance of 15 minutes, in other words if your tour of duty is 08.00 until 18.00 hours and you decide to start at, say, 07.30, one ends up losing out.  It will simply not allow a member of staff to clock in at 07.30.  I have witnessed staff waiting to Clock in at 07.45 hours.  Like many police officers I choose to start work earlier than my duty time of 08.00, however with the inflexibility that this system operates it gives the employee little or no options.  One has to feel for those officers who regularly relieve their previous shift, say, half an hour early.  As I see it those officers probably come in for work early, say, 07.30, but are unable to clock in due to the lack of tolerance within the system.  Just to add insult to injury, try clocking out at 17.30 hours!  The system comes up with an exception/error.  It’s almost as if we are no longer trusted to perform our duty as police officers.

For whatever reason the ‘powers that be’ seem to amend, change or alter the way we operate as police officers, in doing so they also erode the goodwill that the majority of us provide the service in order to make it work!

An Anon officer

Therefore, the national police survey is an opportunity for our police officers to make their feelings known and to offer a contradictory opinion, or otherwise, on policing.  Ministerial prevaricating would have the public believe the Labour Government has been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, that PCSOs are effective in preventing and tackling crime and that priority distorting targets are necessary to ensure police accountability.  Those who do the job on the ground know better and are far more advantageously placed to proffer a faithful opinion.  However, invoking the views of those who believe almost irretrievably that nothing will change is no easy task.  Fear of reprisals and disciplinary action compounds the malaise and engenders fear.  Yet, the current state of policing can change.  It changed sufficiently to fall into its current inadequate state and can change again.  The fact that it hasn’t does not mean that it can’t.  A considerable amount of money and political will is necessary to bring about a more efficient police force.  The first step to achieving reform is for those of you who joined the job to catch criminals and prevent crime and not to be glorified administrators chasing silly targets to give credit to your views by completing the national police survey.

The survey consists of fifty questions which are intended to gauge officers’ opinions in all aspects of policing.  The questions have been compiled in consultation with a national polling organisation who will analyse the responses after the closing date on January 16th, 2008.  The results will be sent to HM The Queen, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other relevant bodies.  If you are a serving police officer and would like a copy of the survey then please telephone 0870 842 8467 or e-mail info@protecttheprotectors.com for further information.  While the success of the survey ultimately depends upon political acknowledgement of police opinion, the public will be made aware of the results and will judge for itself the veracity of Gordon Brown’s pledge that his Government is listening.  It is not a misconduct issue and in no way brings your force into disrepute if you take a survey form home and complete it in your own time.  You can maximise the chances of bringing about a more efficient police force, do the job you joined to do and truly provide the public with the service they deserve by completing the national police survey.  Please tell the public the truth about your job with honesty and integrity.  The situation in our country has never been more precarious and the need for your honest opinion never more desparate.     

I wish to thank those officers from Constable to Superintendent who have shown their support for the survey thus far.  Please click on the black square below to read in PDF format the national police survey.

Screening out of incidents is nothing new.  As much as Sergeants relentlessly pursue detections by proxy they also shield officers from a great deal in terms of spurious complaints from the public and incidents which do not constitute a criminal offence.  Screening out of non-crime incidents is easier to justify than the screening out of those incidents where a crime has actually taken place.  The former is far better suited to telephone resolution whereas the latter is not.  The last thing a victim of crime wants to be told is that a police officer will not be attending and that they’ll have to be content with a crime report number.  If I may be so bold as to infer based on the majority of the victims of crime I ever spoke with, many just want the opportunity to explain to a police officer what has happened to them and are far more concerned with having the personal contact and reassurance of knowing the police are there, listening to them and that they care than whether or not the offence against them is likely to be detected.  I recall quite distinctly a study carried out by Sussex Police who contacted 5,000 victims of crime to gauge their level of satisfaction with officers’ performances and were asked what was their greatest expectation of the police.  Top of the list was a swift officer response.  Next was the expectation that officers would do what they say they are going to.  Detections were not even mentioned.  

As for police efficiency, screening out of offences certainly has the consequence of sorting the wheat from the chaff.  Even if resources were plentiful, it is debatable whether sending an officer to an incident where there are no obvious lines of enquiry is a sensible use of a resource.  However, is the potential for detection the only point and should it be the motivation?  Would a police officer who is not subject to accountability distorting detection targets or crippling and unnecessary paperwork have any objection to attending an incident where there’s absolutely no potential for detection?  I don’t believe they would.  Any officer who believes in what the police stand for knows a crime is a crime is a crime.  It is only the prevailing circumstances of fewer front line resources dealing with too many crimes, priority setting targets and excessive paperwork which makes such a practice necessary and even desireable.  Anyone who has done or is doing the job on the front line knows the current system is no longer adequate and that there simply aren’t the numbers on the ground.  They also know the fact that spending more time chasing silly targets to ensure accountability means they’re dealing more readily with those who they shouldn’t be dealing with while those who they should are able to act unhindered and with impunity.  The Government have made the grave mistake of confusing detection with prevention.  Prevention is the best form of prevention, not detection.  All this at the expense of public faith, trust and confidence.  This is the mark of deficiency, not efficiency.     
 
We keep making decisions which merely manage the prevailing circumstances without the consequence of actually changing them and it is these circumstances which dictate police practices when it should be the other way around. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/npolice111.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/npolice211.xml

Johnno,

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t mind giving a person a record of being searched and the reasons why if they want it.  However, it should be on request only at the time and not compulsory.  What I am definitely not interested in doing is filling out paperwork about how known drug dealers, or other suspected criminals bless them, feel about how I have treated them.  PLEASE!!!

Johnno,

ACT ONE

A few months ago I attended a domestic incident where a father had assaulted his son and his wife.  He was still in the house when I arrived and I nicked him on suspicion of assault occasioning actual bodily harm x2.  A colleague stayed at the house and did the statement and photos and completed the domestic violence booklet.  It’s a pain in the backside to do this booklet but nonetheless it potentially has some use serving as a risk assessment.  As you will know domestic violence is rarely a one off incident.  So, although everyone hates to do them (another bloody form!) it is accepted that it can be a benefit to help manage the protection of the injured party.  The booklet is forwarded onto the domestic violence unit who follow up the incident and liaise with the victim.  From this info in the booklet and talking to the injured party, measures can be put in place where deemed necessary - like a panic alarm.  In my case the injured party was protected by bail conditions, a civil injunction and a police high response marker placed on the address. 

A couple of weeks back, the crime for this suddenly and without warning appeared back on my workload.  What’s this?  Someone has cocked this up, surely?  A call to the crime management unit to get this corrected left me dumbfounded.  I was told I had to phone the crime management unit back and update them with the answers to 40 questions for each crime.  There’s two crimes here so that’s 80 questions!  Firstly, WHY???  The guy has been CONVICTED.  It’s done and dusted.  Secondly, and far more importantly, the questions I need to update are the ones covered in the domestic violence booklet completed at the scene on the day by my colleague and sent to the domestic violence unit.  Why am I duplicating work here especially for a historic job that is finished with?  Stuff that.  I am not bothering.  I’m too busy dealing with today’s crimes. 

ACT TWO

I was left insulted, mystified and damn angry after having received an e-mail from human resources last week asking me to complete a survey.  Was this survey something of value?  Say, to do with improving officer safety?  No.  It was a pile of self evident political correctness gone bonkers asking me to state my sexual orientation!  What the hell has that to do with anyone else apart from me and my wife or, if I was a gay man, my partner?  How does your sexual orientation impact upon your ability to be a police officer anyway?  I don’t understand it.  The reason given was something to do with monitoring quotas, which were probably equality related.  It worries me that there is a consideration that the colour of your skin or your sexual preference should be a factor to be measured in your suitability to do the job.  I take everyone as they come and judge individuals on their own merit, both personally and professionally.  Surely that’s far more important than who they like to sleep with? 

Cheers.