Real Policing

My apologies for not having blogged in a few weeks.  Two projects intended to foster police reform, or at least the precursory debate, have kept me busy.  One I shall explain in due course.  The other is a national police survey designed to gauge the views of police officers.  In regards to the current state of the police force it is difficult to say whether police apathy is part of the cause or merely the effect.  The ability of the police to resist change is as steadfast as its inability to resist political interference.  Some senior officers will decry the civilianising of the police force while those on the ground lament being restricted in their efforts to catch criminals and prevent the public from becoming victims of crime.  Two opposing and contradictory perspectives play out against a political backdrop of dubious government crime statistics and rosy ministerial appraisals suggesting the public have less to fear now than at any time in recent history.  

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.

         

In yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph, I was invited to write an analysis on the practice of ’screening out’ of criminal offences.  Screening out concerns the telephone resolution of offences where it can be established at the time of the initial report whether or not there are any potential lines of enquiry.  In the absence of cctv, witnesses or forensic evidence, forces have taken to screening out offences such as burglary and theft without attending the scene or visiting the victim.  Perhaps the practice of screening out was inevitable.  Yet, is it desireable and what circumstances make it necessary?  I suppose it depends on who you ask.  At the risk of incurring the wrath of my former colleagues, it is a subject which surely requires particular attention considering its implications for victim care, community contact and the widely held public belief that police have become remote from them. 

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,

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!!!