Real Policing

Johnno, (If I may)

I fully support the aims and ideals of your campaign.

I spent 17 years in HM Diplomatic Service before joining the Met as a mature entrant in 1989. Having worked in foreign countries and war zones and seen their police forces at work, I was always proud to think that the police in the UK were the best in the world. I spent 8 years stationed at Wembley, of which 5 were as a Home Beat, before transferring to Heathrow where again I was a Home Beat (for the Northern Perimeter Road) until I was trained as an AFO and used more and more in that role. I retired from the Met in September 2004. I was always proud to wear the uniform, and always tried to do the best job I could, but gradually felt more and more let down as changes imposed by the Home Office (such as Sector Policing, and then a whole new system of forms for arrests) with hardly any consultation with the troops on the ground, had the effect of making us less available to do the job I had joined for - catching criminals and preventing crime! Most of the changes seemed either to be for the benefit of the bureaucrats rather than the public, or as a vote catching response to some latest bad press. The victims of crime seem to come way down in the order of things - there being one organisation for them (Victim Support) but several for offenders.

With regard to having teams at the station to take over the processing of prisoners, I can confirm how effective and useful that can be. When on duty at Heathrow January 2001, I was on armed security patrol in Terminal 3 on a late turn shift. I arrested a female shoplifter at 7.50pm. We were on a quick change-over to early turn next morning. There was no room at Heathrow Custody, so we took her to Uxbridge. They were piloting a scheme there where two PC’s did an attachment for a few weeks to process prisoners to allow their colleagues to get back on patrol. By the time I had written my IRB my prisoner had been interviewed and charged, and all fingerprinting, DNA, PNCB forms and other paperwork completed, and a crime report entered on the computer on my behalf. This meant that I and my partner were able to leave Uxbridge at 10pm, check in our weapons at Heathrow and be back in on time for security duties at 6am next morning

While response vehicles are a useful tool for various aspects of policing, walking the beat gives an officer a more in-depth knowledge and understanding of his ground, as well as becoming a familiar and trusted face to the local community who, like most of us, do not like change. Once they have their “own” local Bobby, they feel they have a personal contact with the police. Some would wait for me to be on patrol to invite me into their homes and give me information about problems and problem individuals in their neighbourhood. An officer on foot is more approachable to his parishioners, he spends more time in a street, he can check out all the back alleyways and rat-runs on his patch, so that he knows them as well as the local ne’er-do-wells. He (or she) can target the “quality of life” nuisance offences, which if unchecked encourage those responsible to go on to bigger and better crimes. I have been able to investigate cases of criminal damage which occurred while I was on leave, because I knew where to go to make my enquiries, resulting in identifying the culprits, informing the parents and getting the damage paid for, without any arrests being made. A good Home Beat can provide valuable, possibly life-saving, information on addresses to robbery or burglary squads planning to execute search warrants on that address.

Because of the amount of time spent at the station, either reading endless memos or “distance learning modules”, completing arrest paperwork and case files. those officers actually out and about in response vehicles are racing from one job to another, and often having to give minimal time and attention to each call. When taking over my beat in Wembley and speaking to residents, especially with regard to “quality of life” nuisance offences, I often heard the comment, “Well, the coppers in the patrol car turned up, but they didn’t seem to be really interested.” With lists of outstanding calls reaching double figures, the coppers in response vehicles don’t often have the time to be interested.

If we don’t patrol a neighbourhood regularly, both on foot and by vehicle, we leave a vacuum for yobs and criminals to fill. Working together both modes of policing complement each other and can be very effective. Having said that, we also need to shake up the process at court and the sentencing, which no longer seems to be geared to providing a deterrent. Once again, more trouble seems to be taken over offenders rights and welfare than the victims they rob assault, maim or kill - including police officers. Police officers, with their courage and professionalism, go out and catch criminals, but if the Criminal Justice System is run for the benefit of the criminals and the bureaucrats, lawyers, magistrates and judges who run it, rather than the public they are there to protect, it all seems rather pointless - and the criminals know it!

A case in point is that of PC Daniel Coffill, 23 years old. When off duty he was punched and kicked to the ground by two teenage thugs after he refused them a light - for a cannabis joint! 18 months later he is in a persistent vegetative state, requiring 24-hour care by his family and is unlikely ever to walk or talk again. The two thugs were sentenced to 9 and 8 years in prison, although they have effectively taken his life. They appealed against their “excessive” sentences. The Coffill family were not told of the appeal, so could not make any representation at the hearing. The judge cut their sentences by two years, and he also quashed the arrangement for them to spend 4 years on licence after release.

Whatever happened to the judges or magistrates who used to declare in court, “I’m not having my police officers assaulted by the likes of you!”?

Good luck with your campaign, Johnno.

Met Police Retired.

Dear Ms. Smith.

Good morning.  My name is Johnno Hills.  I am a member of the British public and also a former police constable.  Firstly, may I congratulate you on your appointment as Home Secretary.  I expect your credentials suggest you are more than capable of meeting the multitude of challenges which await you.  I wish to convey my best wishes for a successful and productive term in office.  Due to the complexities of law and order, I quite understand why the Home Office is often referred to as the poison chalice nobody wants to deal with.  I trust your constitution is such that you recognise the opportunity to succeed where so many of your predecessors have failed, particularly in regards to law and order.   

As a former serving police officer with Thames Valley and Sussex police, I am able to comment on the efficiency of the police force from the perspective of both an officer and a member of the public.  As such, I wish to estalish on behalf of the public and their officers the following in respect of policing in England & Wales.  Ms. Smith, do you consider our police force to be of a standard suitable to meet modern demands?  Do you consider the current system of primarily reactive street policing to be effective enough to protect the public and reduce both crime and the fear of crime?  Do you consider the police force to be adequately resourced and policing according to paperwork and targets acceptable?  Do you consider detection to be of greater importance to the public and rank and file officers than prevention?  Do you consider the kindred expectations of officers and the public to be either unreasonable or unachievable?  If you do not, then on behalf of those who have signed a petition calling for it, I wish to ask for an early indication of your commitment to police reform.     

The effects of change can often be more detrimental than beneficial if no distinction is made between what works and what doesn’t.  Successive governments have shown a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Such an approach to law and order would undoubtedly prove catastrophic.  Therefore, I would like to suggest that careful attention is paid to those serving officers who instruct and inform the public through their online blogs regarding the failure, folly and imprudence of current policing methods.  Their views ought not to be dismissed as an attempt to sensationalise or scaremonger.  The everyday experiencies of these officers will provide you with a wealth of excellent research material and also a stern lesson in how impractical government policies actually compromise and not enhance police performance.  Their insight will also serve to compare and contrast with whatever revelations Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s report provides.  Having served as an officer, let me assure you their experiences reflect not only mine but also those of every other officer with whom I served.  I have no doubt they speak the truth.

Similarly, I urge you to place a greater measure of trust in the views of response officers who are much less ignorant of what goes on on the ground than desk bound officers of the upper ranks.  The experiences of response officers are far more reliable in determining the difference between what is practical and effective and what is not.  Only through careful analysis and consultation with those who perform the role on the street will that which requires change be correctly identified as distinct from that which does not.  Serving response or beat officers will tell you everything that is worth knowing.  They simply need to be asked. 

Since 1983, the British public have witnessed the sudden withdrawal of their officers from the streets as a result of misguided and ill-conceived government policy.  A greater opportunity for crime to take place has given rise to fear, however unrealistic, of becoming a victim of crime.  Reducing the fear of crime is far more difficult than reducing crime itself.  In order to overcome such widespread fear, consultation with the public and those who protect them is absolutely crucial.  Misguided and ill-conceived policy took away not only the officers themselves but also what they represent.  Is it so naive as to suggest that judicious and clear-sighted policy can redress the balance and restore what we lost all those years ago?  Ms. Smith, in the short term, you are the one to decide.  The British public have waited almost twenty-five years for what you have less than three years to achieve.  The task to bring about the police force the public and their officers so desperately want is as considerable as the expectations placed upon you to achieve it.  You have a golden opportunity.  Please don’t let us down.  

Sincerely,

Johnno Hills.            

When former Prime Minister Tony Blair revealed in September, 2002, his party’s mandate to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, his words were undoubtedly music to both the electorate and the media’s ears.  However, Mr. Blair’s statements of promise were among many which were similarly grandiose, indulgent and, sadly, remain unfulfilled.  In this particular respect, Mr. Blair failed to do what he said he was going to do.  For any politician, doing what you say you’re going to do is crucial if public trust and faith is to be preserved, if indeed public faith and trust is a consideration, that is.           

Without doubt, Mr. Blair’s statement of intention has been mocked several times over whilst crime remains rampant.  On my part, I wish to appeal to the British public that no government or political party can claim to want to get tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime without making a similar statement of intention to provide a more efficient and well resourced national police force to make good such assertions.  Currently, our police force is neither efficient nor well resourced and the criminal justice system as a whole is struggling to be even remotely tough on crime.  The current delay in bringing prosecutions to trial and recent considerations regarding alternatives to prison bear this out and reveal the extent of the criminal justice conundrum.  No government which has failed to significantly increase officer numbers whilst restricting their operational efficiency by burdening them with excessive bureaucracy and targets can achieve such ambitions.  It is a lack of resources and the burden of bureaucracy and targets which prevents our police officers from getting tough on crime at its earliest juncture by reducing the opportunity for it to take place.  Moreover, it is the ineffective system of policing which requires change, not the public’s reasonable expectations of police officers.                   

So, regardless of whether Mr. Blair lied unashamedly or willfully misled, we listened.  Hindsight will hopefully ensure that we don’t believe the same thing twice.  Knee-jerk legislation, reviews, campaigns and initiatives will be of limited effect without their efficient implimentation by sufficient resources.  Recent changes in the law regarding knife-crime and using a mobile phone whilst driving have demonstrated how ineffectual such changes are without the means with which to enforce them.  The future promise of toughness on crime and the causes of it is not to be believed in the absence of a similar commitment to police reform.  Without indulging him overly, Mr. Blair’s time in office can only be regarded as a legacy of unfulfilled promises by doing what he said he wouldn’t do and not doing what he said he would. 

If you care to be disappointed all over again, please click on the link below. 

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1726.asp

Whilst neighbourhood policing teams, or safer neighbourhood teams as they are otherwise known, are one of the ways forward, their perceived success has come at the expense of response teams who themselves have suffered the pillaging of their limited numbers in order to staff the neighbourhood policing teams (NPTs).  NPTs were initiated by the Government in an attempt to return to beat policing and are intended to drive down anti-social behaviour and vandalism.  It should be noted that NPT officers do not provide the round-the-clock cover of response officers and will generally not deal with immediate incidents unless they occur on the officer’s own doorstep.  The below e-mail I received in the last few days from a serving response officer.  The officer’s examples demonstrate how the positive impact of government inspired policing initiatives will be limited as long as the perennial problems of inefficiency (red tape, paperwork and targets) and a lack of resources remain unaddressed.  

Hello mate

First of all, may I congratulate you on having had the courage to put your head above the parapet. It’s something I have thought about doing, but never had the guts.

I am a serving officer with 15 years in.

Just to give you a clue as to how fed up I am with the modern Police Service, I have currently been signed off sick with depression/anxiety. I have never felt so guilty, leaving my colleagues in the lurch, but I just couldn’t take any more. I have suffered various physical ailments as a result of the stress and was likely to punch someone, if I carried on.

This has all been brought about by the rapid demise of a job I once used to love.

I will give you a couple of examples of how bad things are:

Response Teams

We have just rolled out Neighbourhood Policing Teams across the force, thereby effectively closing some of the more rural stations. These NPT’s take in several parishes and ‘Police’ them with one PC, a PCSO and maybe a special constable. However, the NPT officers have been told that they will not ‘respond’ to jobs, as that is the job of the response team. So, you would think, that having created ‘Response Teams’ to cover the area that previously was covered by 4 separate stations, that they would have additional staff. Oh no, two years ago my team, that only covered a third of the area that it does now, had 8 officers on it. Now, at best, it has 6 and most of the time runs with 4. Not only do these officers ‘respond’ to the jobs, but they then have to ‘deal’ with them, i.e. do all the enquiries and paperwork. As if this were not bad enough, the management have realised that there are too many crimes for the single NPT officer to deal with on his area, so most of his crimes get allocated to the response teams to investigate. People just can’t take any more work on. There are many officers just about to break under the strain and join the likes of myself on the sick.

Niche Record Management System

My force has recently taken delivery of this marvellous piece of 1980’s technology. All crimes and complaints are recorded on this computer system (somewhere, but I’ll be damned if I can find them!). It is the most user unfriendly computer programme I have ever had the misfortune to use. Every part of the investigative process, for every occurrence (crime or complaint no matter how trivial) has to be typed onto the system by the investigating officer. Needless to say, officers are chained to a desk typing all day, except when they are responding to a job. The days of ‘going out on patrol’ are no longer. We just ‘ Fire Brigade’ Police now. Whilst this system is transparent (allegedly), it is just another generator of statistics that does nothing to assist the average coppers life whatsoever!

These are just a couple of examples. I could give you lots more, but I need to lie down for a while, before I do!

Regards,

Dear Mr. Brown.

In response to your remarks at the Association of Chief Police Officers conference earlier this week, I felt compelled to write the following for your attention.  Being a tax-paying member of the British public and also a former police officer I feel qualified to speak from both perspectives.  As a member of the public, I ask you to consider public expectations of the police force and whether you regard them as reasonable and, most importantly, achievable.  As a former police officer, I ask you to reflect upon a force which has become over-stretched, under-resourced, tired and inefficient. 

As a law-abiding citizen, I consider my expectations to be reasonably simple.  What I expect to see is police officers regularly patrolling the streets where I live.  When I see police officers on patrol I feel reassured of my immediate safety.  Regular patrols provide a visible point of contact and also a potential means by which to restore a sense of cohesion and respect to the community whilst reducing the fear of crime.  Statistics telling me how I am much less likely to become a victim of crime now than twenty-five years ago do not reduce fear.  If in the event that I do become a victim, I expect police officers to arrive in a swift, or at least timely manner, act professionally and with sensitivity and do what they say they are going to do.  Quite simply, I expect to see officers on the beat to deter crime before it happens and a swift police response when it has.  Do you consider my expectations to be in any way complex, unreasonable or unachievable?  If so, how can you convince me that you mean to protect and enhance a British way of life as part of a strong vibrant civic society if such simple expectations cannot be met?   

As a former police officer, I also had relatively simple expectations upon joining the force.  I joined in order to make a difference by serving and protecting the local community.  I expected a structure of efficiency which would enable me to spend time patrolling the streets, providing reassurance and preventing and detecting crime.  Instead of which my colleagues and I were far too inadequate in numbers to meet operational demands and were station bound for the majority of our shift completing repetitive and duplicative paperwork.  As a result, we were constantly responding to and subsequently investigating crime rather than preventing it from ever taking place.  Being under-resourced meant being over-worked.  This in turn meant never being able to offer the quality of service to the victim of a crime which we could have reasonably prevented by simply being more visible.  Monthly targets which led officers on a crusade for quick and easy detections before returning to the station to chip away at the endless mountain of paperwork further compromised the quality of service we could offer.  The next response call would merely perpetuate the inefficient cycle. 

Do you consider my expectations upon joining the job to be in any way unrealistic or misguided?  If so, how can currently serving officers contribute in any meaningful way to the protection of a British way of life or support a strong vibrant civic society in the absence of a more efficient policing structure?  The current system is no longer effective and is falling far short of the expectations of the public and police officers to say nothing of basic principles of preventing crime and disorder.  The demands are too great and are being met by too few officers who are themselves worked into the ground in order to maintain current standards. Officers are simply unable to do the job they joined to do and are paying the price with their health and emotional well-being.                           

In regards to police reform I remain far from optimistic as you have much more to do than you have time in which to do it.  You have also inherited a disillusioned electorate depleted of trust and patience who no longer care to listen.  If you are not going to listen to the electorate then you can hardly expect them to listen to you.  It has to work both ways.  Henceforth, you can expect to be judged by your deeds and not your words.  Therefore, if you are unable to meet the simple expectations of the tax-paying law-abiding public and those who are frustrated in their attempts to truly protect and serve them then I ask you to seriously consider devolving power to those who can. 

Sincerely,

Johnno Hills.       

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6765999.stm

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/9408/Lords+back+crusade+for+better+police

Johnno,

As an Ex PCSO of the South Yorkshire Force I feel I can comment on your feelings regarding the use and deployment
of the PCSO’s.

When I joined up after 14 years as a professional driver I was excited at the prospect of being able to help members
of the public, get into schools working with the kids, and maybe more importantly working on the streets (And youth
clubs/centres) helping people overcome their fears of crime (Perceived or otherwise) At first I really, really did
enjoy my new role, but as time went on I suddenly began to realise the PCSO’s indeed did appear to be “policing on the
Cheap”

We tended to be initially mainly street walkers, intel gatherers. Where on receipt of any relevant info we could complete the
documentation required to pass on to other departments to be acted upon. I was happy with this
approach because it meant I could interact with people and help them if I could.

After around 3 months or so, I was transferred along with a colleague to a new safer neighbourhood team - SNT. Again I was excited by this prospect as
I would still be working the same area as before as the SNT boundaries remained basically the same. This also meant
I could continue to serve the public I’d got to know during the time I had been in post.

However, it soon transpired that I was to be moved to another area (This was decided at a meeting at which I was not
present) to cover for a member of staff who had decided to leave the force. I embraced the challenge being the
resilient person I am. What I did not expect was the fact that all the PCSO’s at my station had very little or
no backup whatsoever from the police officers based at our SNT. I can only describe the said officers as being
very career motivated by using any means possible to boost their status (and PDJ status) in order for them to move
up the career ladder. That usually meant the PCSO allocated to work alongside him/her doing most of the work while they took the credit.

All the officers weren’t like this I have to say, maybe 3 out of the 6 working there, and I am in no way saying that all others officers behave in
this way.

I was also told by my supervisor and the SNT inspector that we had to start “hassling” (Their words, not mine) the local
yobbo’s and drug users/dealers. This was to be undertaken on a daily basis using means at our disposal such as PNC
checks every time we saw them and generally making then feel uncomfortable in the area.

I voiced my concerns at the time regarding this, as we had no PPE issued except for the obligatory body armour (as PCSO’s we weren’t supposed to be
confrontational?) And I asked what would happen should these undesirables take offence to me hounding them every time I saw
them on the streets. I was simply told “you have a radio haven’t you, use it”.

Other times we were told to tackle anti-social behaviour, yep that’s more like it, that’s what we’re here for I thought!
so there was me thinking we’d be going into the parks at night and dealing with youths drinking, or motorcycle
nuisance maybe? Nope, our supervisor thought it fun if we should tell 10 year old kids not to ride on the
pavement and to ride on the roads instead? Erm, I think not! I have a 10 year old son, and no way would
I allow him to use our congested, dangerous roads with his bike. I am well aware that it’s an offence to ride a bike
on the footpath, but there are common sense issues here? I tended to advise them regarding the usage of footpaths, and taking care around pedestrians,
an action which wasn’t very well received by my superiors. They wanted anti social behaviour letters sending…to boost the numbers.

I was ordered to send out a collection of anti social behaviour letters by my supervisor as a local resident had allegedly “seen” a group of young lads smashing windows on her street and named all of them, after lengthy discussions with the Inspector and my supervisor where I expressed my concern as to whether she actually “knew” them I was simply told to get on with it. It turned out at least one of the group was on holiday in Spain, caused quite a stir as you can imagine!

Another fun idea was to send anti-social behaviour letters to 8 year old kids, and sometimes even younger than this
for playing football on housing estates and making a bit of noise in the process. Again we all know that its an
offence to play football on the highway but lets use a common sense approach here, the councils won’t provide
anywhere for kids to play, so what do they do?

I tend to be of an outspoken character, for which I will make no apologies, so I tended to make my feelings known
as a PCSO which I can only say didn’t go down too well at times. I wanted to work WITH the community, not against
them by sending stupid letters to little kids for having a bit of fun. By all means if they were running around
causing havoc, setting fires and being general a nuisance then fair cop, I’ll send the letters, I’ll get them
onto anti-social behaviour contracts with the council (And I have done this)

Just before I finally lost it with the job I was working with the local school bobby. Visiting schools doing the
Miss Dorothy project. Now this is what I joined up to do I thought, lets get into the schools and get to know
the kids at a very young age, help them out and gain some respect at the same time by showing them how look
after themselves should the need ever arise. The project was very successful and both me and the police officer
received high praise form the schools for the performances we put on. However my supervisor and the Inspector
didn’t believe that I, as a PCSO should be getting involved in projects such as this, I was there to walk the
streets aimlessly (Not the right wording maybe?) gathering information and getting to know the public…something which I had already done.

Eventually I became so disillusioned with the job I made the decision to walk away from it. I took my LGV class 2 last
October and passed. This was my way out of a job that had done absolutely nothing for me except a high stress level
and high blood pressure! Although I felt proud that at least I had attempted to make a difference and made a lot of gains in the process.

I finally left the job in September 2006 after nearly 2 years. I had always wanted to join the police force and thought I
had at last found a job where I could make a real difference to people, how wrong I was.

All I ended up doing was a police officers job, with very little powers and very little support and training to boot,
playing a numbers game which was brought into play every time we attended meetings (of which there are far too many, in my opinion)
And being used for jobs which some police officers had no intention of even trying to do.

Give me a driving job any day, more enjoyable, more fulfilling (to me anyway) and good riddance to being a PCSO.

Kind regards, and sorry for the rambling email!

Paul

I’m not sure I appreciate the concept of rolling news.  I’m not sure I appreciate anything which compels me to believe that what I know today is more important than what I knew yesterday and so on for tomorrow.  Something newly known doesn’t (or shouldn’t) necessarily reduce the relevance or importance of what has gone before.  Whether yesterday’s news or not, the death of one by protecting another is far worthier a deed according to the public conscience than how Miss Hilton bore her first night in jail, is it not?  I’d like to think so.  I’d like to think that the moral majority are those whom the media merely tell what they think they ought to know but not how to think or feel.  I’d also like to think that the majority are those who don’t rely on the media to define what personally matters despite the concept of rolling news or that which constitutes breaking news or a front page exclusive.  I’d like to believe we think for ourselves. 

During the on-air debate in which I participated on BBC Radio Five Live earlier this week, Matthew Bannister asked me why, when a police officer is killed, the incident is given greater prominence than a civilian death under the same circumstances.  I responded by saying that this is a question for the media to answer and how the personal risk to officers is accepted as part of the responsibility of their role.  The concept of rolling news is adequate in explaining why the incident of a police officer’s death in the line of duty is disseminated with such fervour, notwithstanding its considerable public interest.  However, I neglected to address the social implications of which there can be fewer acts considered more defiant or rebellious than the killing of a police officer.  Its occurrence reflects a disregard for the authority of law and demonstrates how respect for the police has diminished.  Therein lies its significance.  The killing of a member of the public under any circumstances is lamentable indeed.  However, among the protected, the murder of those who protect them engenders vulnerability anew and is a means by which our own sense of safety and security is measured.          

To those who are in it for quite different reasons and have time-slots or column inches to fill, PC Ian Broadhurst, PC Sharon Beshenivsky, PC Ricky Gray, PC Jonathan Henry et al may indeed be yesterday’s news.  However, to those who can think for themselves, the contribution of these officers reflects what is truly important and what truly matters, despite revenue, viewing or circulation figures and regardless of the breaking nature, impact or exclusivity of tomorrow’s news.  Their sacrifice was far too costly to be forgotten in favour of the next day’s headlines. 

For those who continue to maintain order despite current constraints, uphold our laws, protect our property and preserve our lives at the risk of their own,  I thank you.

This morning I participated in an on-air debate for BBC Radio Five Live regarding officer safety.  There was an overwhelming sense from serving officers and members of the public that the routine arming of all police officers would be an inappropriate and excessive response.  However, the nature of the problem has clearly changed.  Any course of action ought to be considered in the light of the recent high profile deaths of police officers in the line of duty.  Indeed, it is no longer firearms officers who are called to incidents only to be confronted with a knife or firearm.  Response officers are attending incidents which initially appear to be routine but are ending in tragedy.  In the case of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, she attended an alarm activation at a travel agents only to be confronted by a gunman.  PC Ricky Gray attended a domestic incident and was again confronted by a gunman.  Yesterday, PC Jonathan Henry attended an incident of an altercation in the town centre and was confronted by a man in possession of a knife.  

The crucial factor in two of these incidents is that they were initially considered to be routine by virtue of the fact that there was no specific mention of a weapon.  In such circumstances a firearms response would not be justified.  Another common factor is that the risk became apparent only after the officers had arrived.  In each case the only means of protection at their disposal was a baton and incapacitant spray which, in light of the three recent incidents, is proving to be inadequate.  Unless there is specific mention of a firearm or knife being used a firearms unit would not be expected to attend an incident which would then be resourced by response officers.  But what if the risk is initially unknown?  What if the risk only comes to light after initial police attendance?  Where does that leave the response officer who is confronted with a weapon upon arrival at the incident?  Are they to hope that someone else will call up for a firearms unit and that the offender doesn’t shoot or stab them before firearms officers arrive?  Yesterday’s incident could have also occurred as the result of a stop-check or stop search.

The answer does not necessarily lie in increased attendance of firearms officers unless they are to be expected to accompany response officers to routine incidents.  Their limited numbers render this option unfeasible.  Yet, the risk is no longer confined to firearms officers as life threatening incidents are in fact evolving out of what are, ostensibly, routine incidents and response officers have less at their disposal with which to protect themselves.  I am not in any way calling for the blanket arming of officers with guns as the only suitable response.  However, there is clearly a need for better protective measures to be put in place to ensure the safety of officers attending routine jobs only to be confronted by a drunken, drugged or psychologically impaired offender armed with a potentially lethal weapon and a positive mental attitude for violence.  There can be no doubt that what we want or don’t want in terms of our own ideals must be weighed against the practical demands of both officer and public safety.   

My sincere condolences to family, friends and colleagues of PC Jonathan Henry.  The death of PC Henry in the line of duty represents yet another tragic and devastating loss.  The day ought never to come when a loss under such senseless circumstances is considered a normal or everyday occurrence.  This man was somebody’s husband, somebody’s father and somebody’s son.  For those who loved, cared for or knew PC Henry, please accept my deepest sympathy. 

Most sincerely, 

Johnno Hills.  

It has been my intention for a while to write a blog regarding the change in licencing laws which saw 24 hour drinking come into effect in November, 2005.  As a uniform officer at the time I had the same concerns as many others as to exactly how new laws would bring about a change in public attitudes towards binge drinking as promised by the Government.  My particular concern was the impact the change would have on already overstretched and limited resources.  It concerned me that officers would be concentrated in the pub and club district over far longer periods than before.  It also concerned me that, due to limited resources, such concentration in a particular area for longer periods would render other areas of the city exposed and unprotected.  I appreciate the situation may not be the same in other areas of the country, however, my worst fears were not entirely realised. 

With hindsight, I found that the change in the licencing laws did not lead to a significant increase in alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviour but then nor did it lead to the decrease in binge drinking the Government hoped it would.  If it had, there would be no need to spearhead a new national campaign to target the English booze culture which suggests binge drinking has more to do with social attitudes to alcohol than opening hours.  Those who drink to get absolutely hammered will do just that no matter how much time they have in which to do so.  The question of whether the change provides a longer period of time in which to binge drink is debatable as many establishments have elected to extend their opening hours slightly in some cases and in others not at all.  In any case, the opportunity to binge drink for longer exists where it didn’t before and the effects of the problem still remain.  I expect the Government will hail the success of the change in licencing laws on the basis that it has not lead to a marked increase in alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviour.  However, such nonchalance does not address the fact that the change did not bring about the anticipated results.  Is this because the problem was either overlooked or perhaps misdiagnosed?  What does give cause for concern is the pseudo-prophetic approach to devising new laws in the hope that a different set of circumstances will prevail.

In a similar way to the downgrading of cannabis, the change in the licencing laws cannot be considered particularly successful as the change merely addressed factors other than the problem itself.  Downgrading cannabis freed up no more time to deal with harder drugs than changing the licencing laws reduced binge drinking and anti-social behaviour.  Ask any serving uniformed officer.  In addition, no regard was shown to the limited resources which would have been unable to cope had the situation some predicted of widespread alcohol induced mayhem in our towns and cities actually occurred.  The fact that lawlessness on such a level never materialised is not the point.  Ammendments to the law are meaningless without the capacity of the police to deal with the consequences.  Indeed, two noteworthy legislative changes in recent years which have failed to address their respective problems do absolutely nothing to inspire confidence in our Government and its apparent wing and a prayer approach to devising legislation.  Please click on the links below to read more.   

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5007610.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6721183.stm