Real Policing

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.  

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

Johnno,

On Wednesday night we were out on Hallowe'en patrols.  For some reason beyond my understanding, some teenagers find this a reasonable excuse to go around lobbing eggs, flour, racial abuse and fireworks at people and their houses and cars.  They also think nothing of putting in a few windows for good measure.  Like I say, quite why they feel the need to do this escapes me.  It's hardly 'trick' in the fun sense as originally intended in this adopted Americanism.  While carrying out this duty, it occurred to me that we were taking the time to do such an activity as a result of the lack of social respect and discipline around in an ever growing proportion of the youth culture today.   

Anyway, the task at hand presented a logistical policing problem in regards to certain procedures, bearing in mind we work in pairs and were stopping "suspected" youths often in numbers of 10+.  It soon became apparent that going through the whole officially sanctioned stop & search routine of GO WISELY (an acronym for the verbal notification a constable must give to a person detained for the purposes of a search) and accompanying paperwork just wasn't going to work.  On a very busy night where our attention was constantly required elsewhere this wasn't practical.  So, faced with this problem there was a swift return to some old fashioned "common sense policing" in the form of a one off warning to the youths to remove anything from their pockets followed by a quick pat-down and a look in any bags.  Any eggs hidden in the pockets were going to get squished - CRACK - yuk, oops.  Shame!  (Anyway, I can't think of any legitimate reason a 14 year-old out past 8pm and in company with a group of pals would have for carrying a loose egg in their pocket).  Strong words of advice were issued and they were told "if you want a search form then come to the police station tomorrow with a parent and ask for one."  By adopting this working practice between us we were able to get through a marauding group of potential troublemakers in about 2 minutes.  

Following the formal method would have meant, well, I'd probably still be filling out the paperwork now, the day after, for the 50 or so I had stopped and dealt with.  In fact, let's look at that and do some quick maths.  Working on an average time of ten minutes per person per stop & search, including running a computer check and filling in the required paperwork: 50 people x 10 minutes = 5 hours.  Also, the new stop & search forms now contain a section to monitor how the detainee felt about the whole encounter - a kind of customer satisfaction questionnaire, just in case we've hurt their feelings.  WHAT?  I'm not here selling consumer goods!  You've been stopped for a damn good reason and if you don't like it, tough.  If by some chance I have made a mistake and got the wrong person then I will apologise without reservation and explain my reasoning again so that hopefully you'll understand why.  If you're not happy with that then by all means take my number and make a complaint, which you're perfectly at liberty to do.

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. 

The suspect was charged with two counts of common assault and subsequently convicted.  I didn't attend court so maybe he pleaded guilty.  I'm not sure.  Anyway, JOB DONE, right???!!!

Oh no...

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? 

End of rant!

Cheers.