...For the dogged, here’s my response to another reasoned and civil Police critique of my recent article on the subject. On this occasion, I have inserted my replies in the text of the original article posted by ‘CanisLupus’, My responses are marked ***
CanisLupus begins:
I am sure many people have now read Sunday’s Mail Online article by infamous journalist Peter Hitchens. The article uses an extract from within as its title “GET RID OF THEIR GUNS, CARS AND TASERS AND WE MIGHT JUST END UP WITH REAL POLICEMEN”.
***Infamous? Well, how kind.
CL:
This inflammatory comment sets the tone for the entire article in which he lambasts the Police and pretty much labels them useless.
***Inflammatory? Provocative, perhaps, but, as I’ve said elsewhere, I have been trying to get the attention of the Home Office, the Justice Ministry and the police for more than a decade. Is it my fault if my measured and careful book and my article for a Police Federation booklet were utterly ignored by them , or my fault if more ‘provocative’ language actually gets a reaction? I don’t think so. They should examine their own consciences. If more hard-edged language starts them thinking, when restrained language didn’t, the moral case is made for tough popular journalism.
CL:
Upon first reading the article I, like many others completely disagreed with him, rejected it as what has sadly become typical Daily Mail anti-Police rhetoric and then allowed it to anger me.
***I don’t know what this ‘typical’ or ‘anti-police rhetoric’ is . I don’t, as it happens, write, for the Daily Mail, but so far as I am aware its columnists, reporters experts and commentators have long offered perfectly rational, well-sourced and reasonable criticisms of the police sometimes ( as in the case of Richard Littlejohn) tinged with mocking humour . I should have thought that the mere fact that Britain’s leading conservative, middle-class newspaper had become so critical might cause a thoughtful police officer to wonder if something was up. So might a story such as this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383863/Librarian-57-stood-family-yobs-arrested-forced-wear-degrading-hood-police.html
Or this, in another newspaper
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tasered-blind-man-colin-farmer-1393173
It is, alas, typical of the modern force that criticism is regarded as a sin in itself, and dismissed by several methods. One is to claim without evidence that the critic has some personal or venal motive. The other is to assume he or she is stupid or ignorant. A third is to invent a category of person called ‘anti-police’, which happily includes all persons who criticise the police, including perhaps 57-year-old librarians, or 62-year-old blind men, and who can therefore be dismissed *on the sole grounds that they have been critical*. The alternative, of examining these criticisms and taking them seriously, is almost never adopted.
CL:
I then headed to Peter’s twitter timeline and saw that many others had expressed their disagreement with the article in a wide variety of ways and so I decided to send a few tweets to him myself. They were not offensive, or were at least not intended to be,
***Oh, come now. Some of them certainly were, and you know it.
CL
but I just made a few comments about the article and then informed him that I was offended by his suggestions because I had sadly lost a friend and colleague to armed criminals. Peter would later dismiss my comment as “irrelevant” because he had lost a friend to the IRA. Not sure where the logic is in that
*** Then I will explain it. The logic is that all decent and civilised people honour courage , and honour and mourn those, police officers included, who died bravely in the course of their duties. But it is not merely irrelevant but in my view plain wrong to use those deaths as an emotional riposte to criticism of police methods and attitudes. Even journalists die bravely in the course of their duties. It does not place the trade of journalism beyond criticism, and in fact it would be very wrong of me to respond to such criticism by referring to those deaths. I would be using emotion to censor the discussion, and insinuate that critics of (say) phone-hacking were thereby dishonouring the memory of foreign correspondents shot on assignment.
CL
I found his dismissal rather distasteful.
*** did he, though? I would be interested to see him explain exactly why.
CL
I am deeply sorry Peter has lost a friend in this manner and I can sympathise with him in ways he won’t know so I certainly would not dismiss such a thing as irrelevant.. I don’t ask for for MR LC’s sympathy. The
***No, the person involved was not a friend. I didn’t have that honour. He was a colleague. And the Harrods Bomb was a long time ago. I don’t ask for Mr LC’s sympathy, and if he thinks I am asking for it, he completely misunderstands the point I am making.
CL:
My comments on Peter’s timeline soon attracted some strange people and one particularly vile male who seemed frighteningly obsessed with the man. However I did end up talking to some rather sensible, intelligent, mature and reasonable Hitchens supporters who engaged in polite debate and did not become rude, aggressive or offensive when we disagreed. Mr Hitchens himself responded to some of my tweets with his usual sharp rudeness which having read a few of his blogs now I quite like and find amusing, but this is fine and acceptable because I was not particularly polite either. I have to respect a person who speaks their mind and says what they think and feel without worrying about the consequences or who they may upset. Whilst it may be sometimes rude and offensive it is at least honest.
***Good
CL:
Having spoken to these people and having now read his article several times I would like to firstly admit that I was perhaps wrong to dismiss it immediately and secondly to apologise for my rudeness.
***Accepted with pleasure.
I fully respect other people’s opinions and if this article is Peter’s then I respect that. My reason for writing this blog however is to do what he and others have suggested and to point out, in a reasonable manner, where his article lacks fact.
The article is predominantly based on opinion. Peter’s opinion of Police, Policing and a couple of high profile incidents where officers have fallen short of the levels of professionalism expected.
***It’s a short article, not a book. (But there is a book, who runs may read) . It gives two telling and demonstrative examples from my own direct experience. I have heard or read dozens of similar accounts from readers who, in the dozen or so years since I took up this matter have written to me or run me up to express their despair or disappointment at the police force’s lack of interest in their problems, or worse. The newspapers are also crammed with such instances, the worst one being that of Fiona Pilkington because of its terrible end. Many others are in similar states of despair, but just keep on living their persecuted, unhappy lives, the victims of low-level, ‘petty’ disorder of a kind our modern police cannot prevent and have no idea how to stop, because they are a reactive, target-driven, motorised force, and also because they no longer agree with the public about what constitutes wrongdoing. They are, as my book notes, increasingly neutral between ‘offender’ and ‘victim’ , acting as referees between two opposing teams rather than as the ally of the victim.
CL:
I think the thing that has upset many and gotten so many backs up is the sweeping generalisations contained throughout the blog. Peter has expressed his opinion of presumably his local constabulary and expressed this as fact in relation to “the Police” in general to a national audience. Reading between the lines I think the article is aimed at the Policing of London however the language use and numerous generalisations imply to the average reader that the same negativities apply to Police throughout the UK.
***In the course of my work I travel widely in this country. I don’t live in London (though I work there) but in Oxford, a city I have known well for nearly 50 years. I am always vigilant , wherever I go, because of my interest in this matter. What I notice everywhere is that regular police patrol in ordinary uniform has almost totally vanished . I very occasionally see officers in Kensington High Street, miraculously avoiding death and injury while wearing nothing but tunic and helmet and even going out alone. But they are hugely outnumbered by the grim-jawed ,car or van borne gun-carrying, flat-hatted types who regard (for instance) driving at speed through a pedestrian red light while people are crossing , as beneath their notice. Or their brethren who stand about, again often armed as if the Syrian civil war, in mainline railway stations. These are usually at the very least in pairs, chatting to each other, and often in platoons sitting in vans. When I once cheekily wrote down the number of one of these vans, illegally parked outside Starbucks, a sergeant leapt form the vehicle, chased after me and quite seriously threatened to arrest me under the Terrorism Act. He would have done, too, if a passer-by hadn’t told him who I worked for. Then there was the evening when, trying to walk peacefully along the pavement , I was more or less swept aside by a squadron of armoured, helmeted militia who, when I sought their leave to go about my normal business bawled at me in unison , and repeatedly ‘It’s Not Debatable!’, like so many Daleks. The excuse for this was the presence(100 yards away) of an entirely peaceful demonstration across the road from the Isareli Embassy.
By contrast, in a provincial town I observed two ‘patrol’ officers, standing in a street in which cycling is clearly banned, standing yakking to each other while a number of cyclists whizzed straight past them. That is much rarer than the more general experience, in which I can walk ( I love to walk) for miles through any English town and city, never seeing a police officer on foot at all. I was amused, in should add, by an officer who rang me up to complain about my article who a) falsely accused me of calling the police ’cowardly’. b) said I was ‘ignorant’, c) had *never heard* of James Q.Wilson’s ‘Broken Windows’ theory , nor of Rodger Patrick’s work on crime figures, was plainly rather annoyed when I answered yes to the question ’have you ever confronted a man with a knife?’ and rudely hung up when I tried to give him the details of my book.
I don’t ‘generalise’ about this absence of preventive patrols. Many years ago I wondered where all the police had gone and set out to find out. I know from the research I did for my book that the Home Office Police Advisory Board abolished foot patrol on 7th December 1966. I found it how it had been done, and why. Thereafter, I knew that there were no police foot patrols because *there were not supposed to be* . The whole concept and principle of policing had been changed, a process accelerated by the near-nationalisation of the English and Welsh Police in 1967, when most of the small local forces were forcibly merged into the strange hybrids we have now, neither local nor national. It’s all in the book. But you wouldn’t read it, would you?
CL:
who Peter told many on his timeline that he was more than qualified to make his comments because he had written a book about crime and policing etc which involved research. That book however was written quite some time ago. If the website is correct they date from 1999 to 2003. Policing was different then. Very different.
***So he says. I’ve no doubt there are some important changes, but the fundamental point, that the police react to crime rather than seeking to prevent it, remains exactly the same. It has, no doubt got worse, because reactive policing doesn’t work and never will, and while it’s not working crime, disorder and violence increase and intensify. . The police have got better at public relations, and there are all kinds of ‘community initiatives’ and so forth, but I describe such things in my book as temporary concessions, not regarded by chief officers as their main purpose, and so they remain.
CL:
I only joined in 2004 and even now the Police service and its methods are unrecognisable to when I joined.
***Well, they are even more unrecognisable to anyone who grew up before Roy Jenkins wrecked the police in the 1960s, too. In fact they come from another planet, or even universe. The question is, which of these changes is significant, and qualitative, and which merely a quantitative progress down a wrong path set nearly 50 years ago. When I published my book, foot patrol had been abolished and reactive policing was supreme, police stations were closing all over the place. It was a continuation of what I had explained and described. It still is. Most modern police officers simply *cannot understand* the idea of preventive policing at all, except as an occasional concession to soothe the dim public, and simply go on and on about ‘response times’. The same was true of a famous report of the Audit Commission at the time I wrote my book, which jeered that patrolling police officers hardly ever *caught* any burglars. No, that wasn’t their purpose. Their purpose was to deter and prevent burglary. An arrest is a failure, not a success. Likewise a prosecution, even where successful. A police officer, as such, is very little use, after a crime has been committed. He may be useful as a quasi paramedic or a quasi social worker, or as a helpful, kind and compassionate human being, but these tasks can be and are performed by others. As a police officer, charged above all with preventing crime, he is attending the scene of his force’s failure, and can do nothing but record it, help clear up the mess, issue a crime number and provide sympathy and the (usually faint) hope of detection, arrest and conviction of the culprit followed by a feeble sentence. This stark and unwelcome fact is at the centre of my argument, and most modern officers simply do not get it.
CL: The other thing which has changed tremendously is society, crime trends and crime types. I dare say that Peter’s research on this topic may be a little dated. Allow me to explain and clarify a few things.
***Have they really? Louts are still louts, drunks are still drunks, drug abusers are still drug abusers, thieves are still thieves, burglars are still burglars, fences are still fences, aggressive beggars are still aggressive beggars and vandals are still vandals. They have never altered much in many centuries. But, while the pre-1966 police kept them under control, the post-1966 police have allowed them to flourish and take over the streets.
LC:
Firstly, the opening question I am going to take as rhetorical. Whilst many do not support the Police and some actually despise them, it is pretty obvious how useful Police Officers are. They do a job nobody else could or would and without the Police the world would be a much more frightening place to live.
***Is that really so? For a lot of people it is pretty frightening despite the existence of the police. I’m not at all looking forward to being old and weak in modern Britain, and it’s getting harder and harder to afford to live in places where we are safe from ‘low-level’ disorder and ‘petty’ crime. Does he not know how hard it is to get the police to come to deal with these things? And how little use their occasional visits are to the beleaguered people of the big estates? As for whether nobody else could do it, who’s to say. There are a lot of ex-soldiers on the market just now. I suspect many of them would like to have a go.
LC
Until there is an alternative to criticise then the Police remain a very useful tool in preventing and detecting crime and protecting the public. They are only hampered in this role by political interference.
***I doubt the police prevent much crime. They detect a little. They hide a lot by statistical massage (see Rodger Patrick et al) . There is undoubtedly political interference. But when did the Police last campaign against that? They vigorously campaign for more pay and to protect their pensions as it is their right to do. But when did the Federation, or ACPO for that matter, ever campaign against the absurd codes of practice of PACE 1984, or the politically correct inquisition which followed Scarman and Macpherson, or the Equality and Diversity rubbish, or the lowering of physical standards for entry? Or for the proper enforcement of the laws against drug possession, whose abandonment spawns more crime every minute? Or for the restoration of initiative in general, let alone for the restoration of the death penalty, a better guardian than a million stab vests. . Do let me know. I’ve never heard a peep. Yet the police are actively involved in campaigns AGAINST the enforcement of drug laws, so you can’t say it’s because they have to stay out of politics.
LC:
Secondly, despite Peter’s opinion Police Officers do NOT have an ambiguous attitude towards the public. Police Officers have a lot of respect for honest law abiding members of the public. If they did not hold a positive attitude towards them then why would they serve them?
**Do they serve the public? I often see police officers guarding politicians and other figures of power, as one would expect in a third-world country. And thousands of them appear on the streets for big demonstrations and sporting events, demonstrating that they do exist (and the myth of manpower shortage is just that , a myth, as my book clearly shows) . But these officers just somehow aren’t available to man local police stations or to go out on preventive foot patrol. As for ‘respect’, I think there’s a line in Burns about wishing the Lord would give us the gift of seeing ourselves as others see us. He really ought to slip into ‘civilian ‘clothes one day and listen to what people are actually saying about the booted, base-ball-capped, equipment-hung, swaggering, gum-chewing shaven-headed characters who have replaced the old constables.
LC
They put their lives on the line, their health and safety at risk and face daily criticism because they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t and they do all of this for the public.
*** No doubt many are motivated by ideas of service. Even some journalists like to think they are helping to keep society free, and to right wrongs. But I think it is always worth remembering that people also work for wages, pensions, perks, status and other things. That they often hope for promotion, and that in the modern police promotion comes to those who are the most politically correct, most sociological, most bureaucratic and political. And that a desk or a car is always more welcome than a dark street, alone in the rain, a high-prestige special squad more alluring than plodding drudgery, and an early teatime better than a late shift. That’s just common humanity, which we can all understand. It’s true of any job where there are those who go out in the dark, and those who sit at desks. And modern policing methods give common humanity plenty of opportunities, which the old beat didn’t.
CL:
The Police do NOT avoid heading out into the streets
**No, perhaps not, but then again, they aren’t there much. It’s more that they don’t think there’s any point in being there. Which of course makes an unwelcome duty even more unwelcome.
CL
or fear being approached
**I don’t think I mentioned ‘fear’. They just don’t act as if they welcome approaches, that’s all. The set of the face, the ‘deep-in-conversation with colleague’ mode, the militaristic uniform and the menacing ,mistrustful assembly of clubs, handcuffs, pepper sprays and tasers may just, and I say this with all diffidence, suggest to the subconscious mind that this person might not welcome an approach. I mean, what would CL think if he saw a ‘civilian’ going about dressed like that?
CL
and they do NOT always work with another colleague.
***Can’t argue with that. Not always. But mostly. I’ve seen, very rarely, actual lone constables. Perhaps four or five times a year. But it’s far more common to see them in pairs, if at all.
CL
With cuts to frontline policing, which are being cleverly hidden from the public eye, many officers are PREVENTED from heading into the streets. Not by choice for most, but because of workload demands and the wishes of those at the top of the chain of command and in Government. So called “back office” roles usually done by civilians are being plugged by officers. Cuts to the frontline mean less officers to deal with suspects and so they are dragged in off the streets to deal with the interview and charging process which depending on the offence can take hours. Officers want to be out patrolling but most of the time the mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy prevents as many of them from venturing outside some days. It is not “the Police” on the ground that makes this decision, it is those at the very top sitting in the Home Office or those a little further down the chain.
***This is a consequence of the structure mandated by reactive policing. The police should be employed for one purpose, preventive patrolling. All other tasks should be secondary to that. If it were so, current manpower would be quite adequate.
CL
When officers do go out on patrol then yes I think it is fair to say these days most do so in a vehicle.
***Well, quite, and this is not a ‘patrol’ in the sense that a regular foot patrol is. It is in my view largely symbolic. It is not deterrent, not least because it is by its nature unobservant of the small things that a proper police force would prevent and deter.
CL
Again this is due to the dangerously low numbers of Officers available to cover such vast areas
***I believe it is still true, despite some recent reductions that the numbers of officers in this country, both as an absolute and per head of population, is far greater than it was when this country was patrolled on foot and bicycle, police stations existed and were staffed, and most rural areas had residential constables. (Eg, in 1961 (England and Wales figures) there were 75,161 police officers for a population of 46.1 million. In March 2013 (House of Commons Library) , there were 129,584 Full Time Equivalent officers in England and Wales, for a population of 56 million. I might add that in 1961, police had the responsibility of checking commercial premises, and of parking control, prisoner escort , courthouse security, prosecution and many other functions now taken away from them and given to private security firms or the CPS. And also that the police officers are backed up by more than 40,000 so-called ’civilian’ staff, who did not exist in 1961.
CL
and because many criminals these days do not skulk around on foot in the shadows, they travel in vehicles and it is pretty tricky to keep up with a car on foot and as today’s press shows, it can be very dangerous trying to stop a criminal in a car whilst on foot.
***Who’s asking you to do so? Yet it is hard to commit a burglary or any other crime (apart from a motoring offence) while driving a car. The criminal has to get out of the car to be a lout, a thief, a vandal , a burglar, a murderer, or whatever else the police are supposed to prevent. And if the country were still covered by a network of foot patrols, he would have to fear them as soon as he left his car. It is this belief that the job is about *chasing criminals afterwards* rather than about *preventing crime in the first place* that is so hard to dislodge. I’ve long favoured an entirely separate body from the police to deal with traffic matters . And of course a few cars and motorcycles should be available where needed. But they should not be the main means of locomotion for police officers. Boots and bikes should be.
LC:
The main reason however is that the Police have strict response times. They must attend an emergency call from the public promptly and can take no longer than 14mins 59seconds (may vary depending on location) or the call is “missed” and this reflects badly on the force when the statistic geeks come calling which then results in rapped knuckles which roll downwards with increased severity to the initial attending officers. It would be impossible with the number of officers today and the huge areas they cover to meet this strict response times on foot. Let me give you a factual example.
**Indeed, and all this is based on the same basic error, the belief in reacting to crime rather than in preventing it.
My beat area is two hundred square miles. It is at any one time covered by only 2 Police Constables and 3-4 PCSO colleagues. My force has a STRICT single crewing policy and we are routinely monitored via GPS to ensure we are single crewed. If we are found to be double crewed then we are contacted immediately by a rank of at least Inspector and asked to account for why. Unless we are off to make an arrest of a violent person, transporting a prisoner, dealing with a person known to make allegations or suffering with Mental Health issues or transporting the officer(s) to their foot beat then we will be in a little bother. Working with a colleague these days is a luxury and if we can not justify it then we will be disciplined. The only exception to this rule is Friday and Saturday evenings in busy towns or cities. We have just lost a lot of vehicles from our fleet and so my beat only has one marked Police car and one marked Police van. Unless we have a prisoner to process or have specifically requested clerical time in advance then we must all be out on the streets within 30mins of starting our shift, just enough time to brief, check the vehicles and kit and away we go. Often we park up and walk around on foot engaging with the community and have to run back to the vehicle when an emergency call is made. One of us transports our PCSO colleagues to their designated beat areas and then has to round them back up again unless public transport is working. And so as you can see, this is completely different to Peter’s opinion and this is fact. This is not just a one off example for my current beat, this is the case for all beats I have worked and for friends in other forces I have spoken to before writing this.
**See above, prevention versus reaction.
Sadly, because there are so few Police officers these days (***see above) they have to prioritise their work and do not have the resources to deal with everything that comes in. I remember only 8 years ago when I would turn up to briefing at the start of my shift and there would be at least 20 cops on shift. Eight would take cars, two of which were double crewed, and the rest headed out on foot. I loved it. These days there is often only 6-10 officers on shift and the Neighbourhood teams such as mine have even less as stated above. For this reason we do often have to pick and choose jobs. Sir Peter Fahy caused controversy when he admitted recently that 60% of crimes are not investigated. This is the true nature of Government cuts to Policing.
***No it’s not. It’s a consequence of the reactive model. Crime and disorder grow faster than the ability to deal with it. That’s one of the main reasons it fails.
CL
So the Officer who Peter alleges stated he was busy doing something else “in an irritable voice” when he asked him to deal with somebody who ran a red light was most probably simply being honest and was irritable because, whilst I do not wish to make assumptions, I dare say Peter would have been his usual abrupt and rude self when speaking with the Officer in this alleged incident.
***You dare say, though so far as I know we haven’t met. Interesting. But even so, I have more sense than to approach a modern police officer in the manner you describe. I fear them greatly.
CL
I wasn’t there and so cannot say for certain what that officer was doing at the time,
***He was sitting in a big red stationary car, with two colleagues, and seemed to me (as one of his colleagues also was) to be looking at the screen of his phone or I-pad, perhaps tweeting about these horrid journalists.
CL
Peter can explain further, but I have been in similar situations where I am pulled over noting down details of a call I am being despatched to or I am perhaps doing some important clerical at the roadside or even waiting for a suspect vehicle which I know is heading my way, when I have been shouted at by a member of the public for “ignoring” a car which they believe was speeding or the driver was on the phone. Whilst these are offences and should and will be dealt with when possible, I am afraid that we cannot deal with everything.
***No, but as I walk or bicycle about my home town and London, I see (and could, were I a sworn officer act on) as many as a dozen such offences a day . In most cases, thanks to the speed of the traffic, it is quite easy for me to catch up with the offender and tap on his window ( as I do, whenever I feel like renewing and updating my knowledge of the basic English expletives and their usage, which wouldn’t happen to CL) And if you all did that, then the use of phones while driving, and the running of red lights, both in my view acts of homicidal criminal stupidity, would markedly diminish. As it is, they increase constantly (sorry, no statistics, just observation), and I am increasingly concerned that one or both will probably be the cause of my death.
We all long for more resources and the ability to do more so please do not blame the boots on the ground for this as we are as equally frustrated as the public.
***Good if so, but where can we see the evidence of this, in motions at the Federation, or any other collective action to put it right?
I cannot argue at all with his comments regarding the Prince Andrew incident or the Mitchell incident other than to question the part where he implies the Police leaked the story about the Prince to the press. Is this actually true or was it just a convenient link into his bit about “Plebgate”? If it is true then yes I agree it is wrong, if not then he is wrong to imply to a national audience that this was the case.
***I simply asked who leaked it. There is a limited number of possibilities, it seems to me. But the assumption is his, not mine.
CL
I don’t think there is a Police Officer in the UK today that does not wish they could Police without the need for guns, Taser and vests. All these things have become vital tools in the fight against crime. I do not believe Officers should be routinely armed with guns but to remove them completely would completely prevent anybody at all dealing with armed criminals and to have them available only at the station to be allocated to trained officers when an incident come in would only delay response time and put more lives at risk. The same applies for Taser. These tools are much safer and cause less problems and discomfort for the suspect then CS spray yet this has become acceptable now. Yes there have been a few Taser horror stories in the press but when compared to the plethora of unreported positive Taser deployments these few cases would not even be 1%. Having been subjected to the Taser (by choice) and seen it used a handful of times I have no issue saying it is a vital tool and should replace CS and Pepper spray. And as for vests… Well to suggest the Police should be deployed in this day an age without one is madness. I wish we could be but we can’t. So long as the Police and Justice System receive no respect or fear from violent criminals and offers no deterrent these days then Police will continue to need protection from harm when putting themselves in front of armed and violent criminals. My vest has saved my skin, if not my life, on more than one occasion and has stopped bullets killing a few of my colleagues too. Helicopters although expensive really do assist the Police. They were introduced as a progression in policing and are used for a wide variety of roles such as searching for criminals and missing persons, safely following vehicles to prevent dangerous pursuits, monitoring public disorder incidents to direct officers and gather evidence. The list of jobs they do which could not be done by any other means even if we trebled the number of cops on the ground is vast. I really do wish these things were not needed to Police society but before the surrendering of these items can even be considered, society needs to change, crime needs to drop (for real, not just on paper) and the Police need more resources so they can safely patrol. Does Peter really think 2013 Britain can be policed using archaic methods, tactics and equiptment?
I agree with Peter to some extent that the uniform needs to change. We are beginning to look slightly more militant and even more so when armed to the teeth in and around the streets of London. The Police uniform has gone from being smart, presentable and also carrying an air of authority to a national mismatch of styles and colours and although it may be more practical for modern day policing it is quite uncomfortable, looks quite militant, often looks scruffy and does little to help our desired approachable image. I hate the thin, tight fitting moisture wicking polo shirts most now wear and think we should look at moving back to the white shirt and ties and having some pride in our appearance once again. The horrid hi-vis jackets and tac vests are grime magnets and get dirty very quickly and rarely come out clean when washed. Many cops walk around in dirty day-glow looking more like an AA mechanic these days because that is the uniform we are given. I love looking back at pictures of uniformed Police through the ages and when uniform from only 8 years ago is put next to today’s it really is quite sad to see.
The fact is Policing has changed because society has changed. Society has changed because of poor leadership in Government. The days of the local bobby being only a shout or whilst blow away are long gone and I would love nothing more for them to return. I would happily put up a Police sign on my house and be my town’s local bobby. I would and often do quite happily patrol on foot in all kinds of inclement weather. I have done so in city centres, rough estates, rural areas and small towns and villages and I have done so alone. Yes it was nice in the days when you could perhaps walk with a friend and colleague and you knew you had immediate assistance if needed but nobody enters the world of Policing expecting to have somebody holding their hand every day. Whilst we might moan about it, the Police are more than used to change and learn to adapt all the time and despite what Peter’s article may say they are doing just that today. His own experience of Policing in London or in one particular area may be negative, his research from 10+ years ago may be negative (I don’t know as I have not read his books), his recent article may well be overly negative towards the Police but it was wrong of him to imply on a national level that what he sees and hears in relation to Policing in London is a reflection of “the Police” in general. It is not so much what he says that irritated me in particular but rather HOW he said it. In this day and age when the media hold the Police in general accountable for the actions of a select few resulting in a dispirited public, articles as vague and as sweeping as this only seek to fuel the erosion of the reputation of the Police Service of England and Wales, a Police Service respected and admired the world over.
All the things moaned about by Peter are also nothing to do with the men and women the public see on the streets which again is something I think Peter should have made clear. The lowly PC has no say in his/her deployment, posting, what he/she wears or carries for protection, what incident they can or can’t deal with, whether or not they can work with another bobby… The PC is at the very bottom of the Police ladder and does as it is told. These decisions are all made much higher up the ladder and quite often at a Government level and so for anybody to take out their anger, annoyance or even their hatred for Police and Policing out on the men and women on the ground is disgraceful and to hold the entire Police Service of England and Wales or even a whole force accountable for any single negative encounter or the mistake or criminal actions of a small select few corrupt officers is ridiculous. You would not and could not get away with discriminating against other groups in society based on the actions of a small minority. I would never for one second tar all journalists with the same brush because one or two like to write anti-police stories. It is wrong and deep down I think these people know that.
I doubt Peter will read this and if he does I doubt he will either admit it or agree. I hope I am proved wrong but I doubt it. I wanted to write it because I wanted to firstly apologise to Peter for my initial reaction and if he does read I hope he accepts that apology. Secondly I wanted to try and explain in greater detail than Twitter allows just exactly WHY I disagree with parts of his article. Many of his supporters have asked me questions that I can simply not respond to in 140 characters and so this is my response and my opinion based on my up to date knowledge and facts.
***Well, there you are then. It’s getting late in a long day, and I’ve explained why it was that I wrote as I did, and I too wish you could get anywhere in modern Britain without turning up the volume. But I never heard from Mr CanisLupus about my book, did I?
The long paragraphs above are best dealt with by reading that book. I think it absurd to imagine that the deterioration in the police force could have happened without at least the passive acquiescence of many officers, and the active support of some. The incidents I mentioned were worth mentioning because they seemed to me to be exemplars of an attitude. I have said a dozen times that of course much of this is political, but if the police officers themselves won’t fight against it, using the tools available to them, yet stream on to the Internet to defend themselves against critics such as me, then we are entitled to assume they don’t object. Nobody writes ‘anti-police’ stories, a ridiculous expression which armours its user against giving serious consideration to important criticism. . Alas, there are many stories which reflect badly on the police, and it is our job to write them because they matter, and need to be told. None of us is a saint. But I think it would help if we each accepted that the other’s *motives* were basically good. I don’t doubt the *motives* of the modern police are good. But it’s no good having good motives, or working hard, or being brave, or anything else, if the thing you are doing is fundamentally mistaken.
If the staff of an electrical goods factory were diligent timekeepers, highly productive, cheerful in their labours and everything else, but they wired all their plugs the wrong way round, which would matter more? Reactive policing has never worked, and never will. Preventive policing did work, and will again, when we reintroduce it. Can’t come soon enough for me. I’d welcome CL’s support.