The Policeman's Blog

In my career as a police officer, I've not been to many awards ceremonies. If I ever did get an award, I'd have to make sure I was on holiday in LA, so the Superintendent would have to say, "Sadly, PC Copperfield can't be here to collect this award in person, but here he is, live by satellite from Los Angeles!" The assorted crowd would then cheer wildly (or at least clap sporadically) and see me sipping champagne by the pool at the Bel Air on the giant video screen, while back at Newtown Civic Centre they all made do with tepid coffee and stale sandwiches.

Before I had this idea, I thought I might get into a "fracas" with Civic Centre staff and have to be thrown out. This would have two positive consequences:
1. Other people would no longer assume I was a mediocre policeman shuffling through the corridors, hiding behind plants unnoticed in the grand scheme of policing Newtown.
2. I'd be taken off shift and sent on a three day anger management course.

Sadly, Rob Taylor, ACC with responsibility for diversity and "respect" at GMP, has beaten me to it. Apparently, the story has been pinned up on a notice board somewhere in GMP and someone has written "Have you considered s5 POA?" Although I suspect that in this particular case the job was no-crimed at source.

(thanks to Richard)

In-house police magazine “The Sharp End” recently ran a feature about how things had moved on since policing as seen in the television show “Life on Mars”. I can’t really comment, because I wasn’t around in the 1970s (or rather I was, but at school). The police service as a whole is much more accountable to the public (at least on paper) and the way in which we treat suspects in custody has radically changed. The thing is, as we have become more accountable and fairer to those we arrest, we have fallen in the public’s estimation.

Anyway, if you enjoyed Life on Mars and have a strong stomach, you’ll love Horses Arse by Charlie Owen (published by Headline Review, £11.99) It’s the story of a group of police officers working in a town called Handstead and set in the 1970s. Most of the action takes place in one shift and includes the kinds of japes that we simply wouldn’t be able to get away with now (my favourite is Psycho’s road safety campaign). It’s apparent right from the start that the police officers aren’t exactly sympathetic characters, and while you might not think, at first, that there was an awful lot to choose between them and the villains of Handstead, you’ve got to remember that there was a time when the police got on with the job.

The shift at the heart of the story is one which most people would recognise: some people have been arrested the night before and are in the cells, one is on foot patrol and some are looking for a disqualified driver. It's the 1970's, when there was time on a shift to actually go and do these things. Tragedy strikes at the end of the book, but I won't spoil the story by saying what exactly happens.

The ending’s excellent, rather poignant but, as it says on the back, “some sort of salvation”.

By way of a comparison, of sorts, I see that police should now be on the lookout for a new drug that both treats your worms and gets you high. I wonder what Handstead's finest would have made of that nonsense.

I’m all for measuring performance, after all, you might hope that having the police around would mean there was less crime rather than more, and we could measure that. You might also hope that where a crime has occurred, we would solve it.

The problem is that police forces are bureaucratic entities that depend upon “statistical significance” for their continued success. Those in charge don’t really depend upon the approval of local people for their salaries, they look instead to London and the Home Office. The Home Office judges police forces on one single statistic: how many people do we charge or caution.

The main problem with using the detection rate to measure performance is that it relies on people committing crimes first. The advantage for the bureaucrat is that it can be easily measured and a whole load of targets set. It all rather reminds me of the “body count” in the Vietnam War, when the US set great store by how many enemy they had killed, while all the time they were actually losing the war. Could it possibly be that even if we actually meet the all crime detection rate target, the public won’t feel the slightest bit safer?

Give people an inch and they’ll take a mile. I try to ask people very simple questions, then go from there. Here’s an example:
“Who’s called the police?”
“I have.”
“Why have you called the police?”
“My daughter’s smashed a window.”
Notice the quick identification of the aggrieved, followed by an equally rapid appreciation of the scene. Another two minutes and I’ll know if there will be sufficient evidence support a prosecution.

It’s not always that simple though. Sometimes people say thing’s like, “He’s been having a go at me again” or “I want to move house.” The former is a common complaint about which we can do nothing. Well, nothing useful that is. The latter is not so much a complaint, as a request better directed to an estate agent you might think.

Did I say we were police officers? Out and about enforcing the law and protecting property? Giving people peace of mind? Whatever gave you that idea? I have recently found out that our duties have now expanded to cover writing letters to housing associations for people who wish to move slums. Initially, I objected to the idea, but then someone pointed out that as we spent most of our time in the office anyway, what did it matter if we were working in loco social services as it were? The more I have thought about it, the more perverse pleasure it gives me: neighbours from hell ringing me up, asking me to list all the previous incidents where they have called the police to complain about the actions of those unfortunate enough to live near them. As a result of my letter, the neighbours from hell get moved to live near other neighbours who are…from hell.

Quote of the week, from a conversation with a recent immigrant from Eastern Europe:
Him: I don’t understand the laws in this country.
Me: That makes two of us sir.

PS I'm back on a more regular basis. Internet & other problems now resolved.

* No offence if you live in a slum, obviously

I have. That's my excuse for not posting too often (and your excuse for not logging on). I've noticed that despite the hot weather, people seem to have an inability to be happy. What's more, the sunshine seems to give people more reasons than ever to call the police. I've had a number of work-related problems recently, these are:
1. Child victims being outside playing when I come to see the parents about the latest injustice perpetrated on their offspring ("No, I really do have to see Freddy because he's the actual victim here.")
2. Parents not understanding that the age of criminal responsiblity is 10 years old. This means that there isn't much we can do about an 8 year old throwing stones.
3. Vicitms who are "frightened". I simply cannot make people understand that feeling frightened does not necessarily mean a crime has occurred. Frustrating on the one hand, but on the other wouldn't you just love to arrest someone for "being frightening" (the wording for the charge being "Scaring or frightening with the intention that they or another would feel scared").

Lunatics. The lot of them. Read more here.

A new report from the Conservative Party called Policing For The People is now out. The content makes me suspicious that someone might have actually done some proper research, so I think it's well worth a look.

Elsewhere, someone in charge might have been listening, or at least reading.

This is the first month that we won't automatically investigate frauds without something from the bank first. We'll have to wait to see what effect this will have on Internet crime.

One of the nicest things about all this writing is that I get to correspond with officers from across the world. An officer recently wrote to me saying that he never wrote witness statements and instead the practice was to get the witness or victim to write their own. I spotted a flaw in the system and asked him, “What happens if the victim is so drunk at the time that they are unable to write? How often to you have to try to find them and get them to write their statement?” His reply is instructive:

“Almost never. If they can’t be bothered to speak to me about the services I can provide them, there are others out there who are. Most of the case or incident numbers end up ‘coded’ – closed off on the dispatch system as being dealt with without a report being entered on the main information system. We have a set of disposition codes for these incidents; probably the most often used is Code 8 – “Advised”. Although intentionally and usefully vague, “Advised” is usually short form for “Advised complainant to sober up and then try us again if it is still important in the light of day”, “Advised complainant that his/her problems of are their own making and we will not be assisting”, and sometimes even “Advised complainant to shut their pie-hole.”

The car crew can enter a short notation explaining what they did and why no further action on that particular job is warranted, just in case there is a complaint later on. For the most part, nobody ever looks at these again, but there is an expectation that the District Sergeant (the Street Boss) is going to keep an eye on who is doing what. The Dispatch system is searchable though, and records of past calls come up associated to addresses the next time you go regardless of whether or not a report is on the main system.

That being said, if it seems a truly serious matter, I would call/stop by to see if I can follow up. Usually though, the terribly serious matter has by then dissolved into a minor irritation for the complainant and if not, I will then go ahead and investigate the complaint.

Fortunately, things don’t get ‘crimed’ by third parties…forcing follow-up where none is actually warranted.”

My favourite part is his unspoken assertion that the system is tightly controlled because the District Sergeant keeps an eye on things. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that in the UK there are whole departments of “auditors” dedicated to going over previous incidents and generating lots of work (and jobs).

On a similar note, you can read the latest HMIC report here. I’ve tried to read it, no honestly I really have, but I simply can’t fathom the point of it all. Is it trying to say that there are enough officers out there or not? Is it saying we need new systems? Is it simply a work generation scheme for top police officers anxious to move from the hell-hole of BCU management? Buried in the report is the line: “Disappointingly, 25% of callers [to the police] who had agreed appointment times, failed to keep them.” Perhaps the underlying message is “25% of callers to the police subsequently realised their complaints were so insignificant they didn’t actually want to see the police at all.”

I didn’t expect the news of the demise of admin detections to come with a fanfare, but I would have thought the announcement could have been made a bit better than this:

It is therefore essential that all current files capable of detection by HO Stat are submitted by Monday 26th March at the latest to ensure transfer to CMU or SIU accordingly and to allow the DDM time to review and authorise. Supervisors must ensure that their staff are made fully aware of the need for urgent submission of potential HO Stat files currently held.

Any files after Monday 26th, should be taken in person by the OIC or someone on their behalf to the District D/I in order that the authorisation can be expedited and the C1B submitted immediately by the OIC or person on their behalf, to CMU. Any suspect details forms for HO Stats submitted after mid-day on Friday 30th are unlikely to be input and the detection will be lost.

The only HO Stats that will be claimed from 1/4/2007 will be D1- Offender has died prior to proceedings and D6- CPS decide it is not in the Public Interest and record their decision on MG3. In both cases this will relate ONLY to Indictable Offences.

Finally, for those of you still muttering that this blog fails to address the key issues facing today’s police service, I give you the Police Federation, which is asking whether police maternity uniforms are fit for purpose.

(thanks to Stephen, G and Mike)