Police 5(or less?)

#1
From the Beeb today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7478337.stm

From The Telegraph today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/220...stable's-love-life-went-right-to-the-top.html

Our police are not having a happy time.In fighting amongst senior officers,such as the Muslim guy in The Mets and his boss,being conducted in the press,certainly does not help the ''Police Image''

Do forum members believe that a ''Todd type'' situation would be tolerated amongst senior military officers,or are there higher standards in The Forces than Police,when it comes to personal conduct?
 
#2
'or are there higher standards in The Forces than Police,when it comes to personal conduct? '

yeah right...
 
#3
let me qualify that....... since wearing a blue uniform, ive had to behave much better than i did in green!
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#4
So, you've only shagged the typist and the civvy down the property store then, as opposed to both of them and all three of the canten lasses and that PCSO with the big tits?
 
#5
Bit of a specious comparison. The police are dealing with the public, therefore their personal conduct makes them subject to the constant scrutiny of a critical and vocal public who pay their wages through taxation.

If Johnny Taliban doesn't like the way that he's treated by a squaddie then it's (usually) just plain tough on him. If Joe Public doesn't like the way a policeman treats him, then it inevitably becomes tomorrow's headline.

The public has different expectations, therefore, no real comparison save at the highest levels of management, who appear to be equally incompetent.

Salivates at thought of huge breasted PCSO.....
 
#6
Just from a personal standpoint, and as a serving police officer of 22 years, it seeems to me the problems have little to do with race, gender, preferences or religion. But more to do with the personal agenda of the people who joined the service/s with promotion and the advancment of their career as the goal. It was the same when I was in the army some officer types would sh1t on their own people just to make themselves look better or further their specific agenda, most are being driven by outside counsel.

My wish would be that they grow a pair and stop biting the hand that fed them so well and put them in a position to make these sweeping statments.

As for damaging the service, I doubt it. It just gives the chattering classes something to yaa about.
 
#7
This is just my opinion, but why does the police care about what the public thinks about it? It's there to enforce the law, not to make friends (although it often can't do either very well these days), and I would rather see a force which took a firm approach to all forms of crime and didn't give a tuppenny shit about public opinion than being a "customer" of the current PC powerlessness brigade who only exist to enforce Labour's unrealistic crusade against common sense.
 
#8
BZ, BZ. We only gained an ineffective police service when they started to listen more to the villain's whinges than to the victim's.

I for one would prefer a far more robust policing method, which in itself would do away with so much of the 'low level' crime that plagues so many nowadays.
 
#9
still21inmymind said:
BZ, BZ. We only gained an ineffective police service when they started to listen more to the villain's whinges than to the victim's.

I for one would prefer a far more robust policing method, which in itself would do away with so much of the 'low level' crime that plagues so many nowadays.
I agree but would need loads more coppers, support staff and court room time etc...ie massive extra funding and criminal justice infrastructure expansion.....

.......Until then things will tick along (Not so nicely) as they do at the mo. Whole reason why alot of coppers in urban/city areas are working like ****.....stressed out and up to their eyeballs in paperwork wishing they didn't have a mortgage/wife/kids/HP to fund otherwise would **** off and do something else....most of the middle management who've been in 15-20+ years counting down the pay checks till pension and getting by on remembering the good old days.......(trust me I know..blue isn't a natural progression from green)
 
#10
The nature of the service is that we try to be all things to all people and end up forgeting what we are there to do in the first place. The obvious corrolation to the military is peace keeping, you can do it and you have a certain amount of success at it but at the end of the day it come down to who has the biggest stick. In the police our stick is the law, no matter what an officers preferences or personel beliefs we must act within the law. Without fear or favour thats what they said when i was sworn in and thats what a few of the senior officers should remember.
 
#11
Bravo_Zulu said:
This is just my opinion, but why does the police care about what the public thinks about it? It's there to enforce the law, not to make friends (although it often can't do either very well these days), and I would rather see a force which took a firm approach to all forms of crime and didn't give a tuppenny s*** about public opinion than being a "customer" of the current PC powerlessness brigade who only exist to enforce Labour's unrealistic crusade against common sense.
Just a thought. Bear in mind your post when 'police are appealing for help in their enquiries'.
 
#12
over_the_hill said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
This is just my opinion, but why does the police care about what the public thinks about it? It's there to enforce the law, not to make friends (although it often can't do either very well these days), and I would rather see a force which took a firm approach to all forms of crime and didn't give a tuppenny s*** about public opinion than being a "customer" of the current PC powerlessness brigade who only exist to enforce Labour's unrealistic crusade against common sense.
Just a thought. Bear in mind your post when 'police are appealing for help in their enquiries'.
When the police appeal for help, you would help because you know they will use your information to remove a criminal from the streets, not because they're all nice friendly people. At the moment, I would be willing to bet many people don't come forwards because they don't believe the police will do anything meaningful, and will not protect their identity.
 
#13
Bravo_Zulu said:
This is just my opinion, but why does the police care about what the public thinks about it?
I don't think there can be any better answer to that than the one offered by Robert Peel himself:

Sir Robert Peel said:
Police Principles
# The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
# The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
# Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
# The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
# Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law*.
# Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
# Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
# Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
# The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Unfortunately, in the race for self aggrandisement by the personally ambitious , some senior officers and politicians have forgotten the very raison d'etre of the police force.

Pay_Mistri

* Of course impartial service to the law must include adherence to race discrimination laws.
 
#14
The problem with "robust policing" is that you need a very particular kind of cop to carry it out. There is a big difference between being able to be violent and being a violent person. Guards NCOs used to practise losing the rag at cars, bollards, tables...the idea being you learn how to turn it on. There's a big difference between that and just being a bully. I remember an American sitcom years ago, one of the characters said something that made me smile - "I dislike violence. But I'm awfully good at it". Those two cops who seem to have given that bloke a kicking, if they did what he says they did, are a pair of cowards hiding behind the warrant. KNobs like that create 100 criminals every shift, as they p*ss people off, who then tell their families and friends, who then tell their friends...........soon the neighbourhood is ungovernable and nobody would p*ss on a cop if he was on fire.
 
#15
Bravo_Zulu said:
over_the_hill said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
This is just my opinion, but why does the police care about what the public thinks about it? It's there to enforce the law, not to make friends (although it often can't do either very well these days), and I would rather see a force which took a firm approach to all forms of crime and didn't give a tuppenny s*** about public opinion than being a "customer" of the current PC powerlessness brigade who only exist to enforce Labour's unrealistic crusade against common sense.
Just a thought. Bear in mind your post when 'police are appealing for help in their enquiries'.
When the police appeal for help, you would help because you know they will use your information to remove a criminal from the streets, not because they're all nice friendly people. At the moment, I would be willing to bet many people don't come forwards because they don't believe the police will do anything meaningful, and will not protect their identity.
Erm, no I wouldn't. The only reason I would report a crime is because the insurance won't pay up without a crime number, not because I thought that something would be done. If I could get a crime number at WH Smiths I would. Staff are less surly. Unless the paramilitary wing of ZANU NL connect with the public again they are in doo - doo.
 
#16
over_the_hill said:
Erm, no I wouldn't. The only reason I would report a crime is because the insurance won't pay up without a crime number, not because I thought that something would be done. If I could get a crime number at WH Smiths I would. Staff are less surly. Unless the paramilitary wing of ZANU NL connect with the public again they are in doo - doo.
I know what you mean and I think the pace of life these days, not everyone wants to spend x amount of hours completing a statement etc plus potential "inconvenience" of going to court etc. The problem is when for example a damged fence one night by a drunk twat is reduced to a matter of an insurance job rather than an afront to the civility of our society and dare I say community, then we will never win.

It would be nice to say that more serious offences would still be taken seriously by individual victims and other members of the public but the truth is that many are not. I forget the number of times I've attended incidents where someone has ended up in hospital seriously injured in some sort of assault case, me and my colleagues have spent hours seizing clothing for forensics, getting cctv, collecting witness statements and all the other enquiries to then find the victim isn't interested and the cPS wont prosecute without a victim statement.

I dont suppose it really matters on one hand but when you end up working regularly 14 or 15+ hours to deal with these sorts of incidents, (it happens regularly where I work and my working day is meant to be 8hours), then all the follow up work in the subsequent days because the force is short of officers and your home life and personal life go's out of the window because the job always wants more. I wouldnt mind so much if I worked long hours and got a result but all that happens is it all gets filed and the offender gets away with it.

Did I mention all the other crimes that me and my colleagues are meant to be investigating aswell. Sorry, I've digressed a little. What am saying is its a spiral, the more we put up with by not getting involved, not reporting things, not assisting the police, the more crime we will suffer.
 
#17
johnny,

you seem like a reasonable copper, do you think the Peelian principles are still adhered to, or are they paid lip service in the modern police force?

And, what do you make of this particular story?

Former soldier arrested for making citizens arrest

And from Tom Paine's Blog a bit of analysis, which I think demonstrates a clear nail/head interface:

Tom Paine said:
There was a time when youths would have feared to act in such a way, because the local community would have dealt with them and the police would have exercised common sense. Common sense in this case would have rejected the allegation of kidnapping, which was clearly part of a malicious campaign. But "by the book" bureaucratic Britain requires that common sense is not applied. The allegation was made and must therefore be given credence. Worse, the bureaucracy incentivises the police to pick low-hanging fruit and win a quick statistic, rather than actually tackle the crime that makes many parts of the country unliveable.
Pay_Mistri
 
#18
over_the_hill said:
Erm, no I wouldn't. The only reason I would report a crime is because the insurance won't pay up without a crime number, not because I thought that something would be done. If I could get a crime number at WH Smiths I would. Staff are less surly. Unless the paramilitary wing of ZANU NL connect with the public again they are in doo - doo.
I would urge you to always report everything for two reasons:

1. Resources are allocated according to need - alegedly.

2. If you don't then some senior plod with a cheesy grin will be on your local news saying how crime has dropped and he's doing such a brill job.
 
#19
over_the_hill said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
over_the_hill said:
Bravo_Zulu said:
This is just my opinion, but why does the police care about what the public thinks about it? It's there to enforce the law, not to make friends (although it often can't do either very well these days), and I would rather see a force which took a firm approach to all forms of crime and didn't give a tuppenny s*** about public opinion than being a "customer" of the current PC powerlessness brigade who only exist to enforce Labour's unrealistic crusade against common sense.
Just a thought. Bear in mind your post when 'police are appealing for help in their enquiries'.
When the police appeal for help, you would help because you know they will use your information to remove a criminal from the streets, not because they're all nice friendly people. At the moment, I would be willing to bet many people don't come forwards because they don't believe the police will do anything meaningful, and will not protect their identity.
Erm, no I wouldn't. The only reason I would report a crime is because the insurance won't pay up without a crime number, not because I thought that something would be done. If I could get a crime number at WH Smiths I would. Staff are less surly. Unless the paramilitary wing of ZANU NL connect with the public again they are in doo - doo.
Connecting with the public is irrelevant. If you knew that the police would do their utmost to help, provide all the support you needed, arrest and charge someone and recover damages on your behalf, you wouldn't hesitate to ring up, rather than damage your insurance history with a small claim. If the police exercise common sense and actually do something to help the victims of crime, then the public will regain faith in them regardless of how politically correct and approachable they seem.

All my dealings with the police never end well; at best they do nothing, at worst they try to threaten me for doing my civic duty (having been there, I sympathise with the ex-soldier persecuted for carrying out a citizen's arrest). If the police do not improve their efficiency (by any means) then I fear a rise in vigilante responses to crime, similar to the UDA protecting factories in NI and kneecapping petty thieves who burgled the wrong building. It just happens to be my belief that robust policing (and corporal punishment) is the best way to deal with the antisocial, youth crime which plagues this country today.
 
#20
Firstly Bravo Zulu..I'll try and keep this brief..As I said I agree with robust policing but in simple terms, until any government will at leat triple the number of police officers, build new police stations for them to work from, triple amounts of support staff to correspond with the extra work generated and build or at least legislate for court rooms to sit longer than 8 hours a day (not usually more than 4 or 5 hours a day in crown court), build extra prisons, recruit prison officers, probation officers etc, then that style of policing cannot be used.

Let me explain, and I apologise in adavance if I am describing things you are already aware of....
In most average to large towns, say a town with a population of between 100 to 150,000+ people, at any one time there is probably about 12 to 15 uniformed officers on duty to and available to police the town and by that I mean go out on the street and do foot beat or panda car duty, responding to calls from the public of an emergency or routine nature.
(I remember numerous nights where on the worst nights, due to extractions, sickness, courses, my shift had literally only enough officers to put out three or four panda cars to police a densely populated 40 squre mile area which has historically been a high crime area.)

Typically there will be routine calls to attend where members of the public have requested police attendance to report something e.g woke up and found shed burgled and police need to attend to record and investigate the crime.There will also be prisoners to process from that day or who were drunk the previous night and could not be processed till the following day.

There will undoubtedly be emergency calls where police are required to attend immediately e.g fights and public disorder, domestic disputes, activation of intruder alarms at commercial premises, shop lifters detained by shop security staff etc I cold go on. All these incidents take time to resolve and to provide efficient public service and often need to be investigated further in the following days and weeks.

If you accept what am saying then please also accept that what I have described is very very basic reponsive policing. Other matters such as patrolling to provide public re-assurance, enforcing traffic legislation e.g motorists driving cars in poor condition or anti-drink drive initiatives fall by the way side in order to provide basic police attendance after a call from 1000's from the public has been received.


What am trying to say is the reason police may not attend is not because they're sitting in the canteen dunking their digestives but because there is literally no one to respond. So what happens in the mean time, 'all the other stuff like petty vandalism and anti-social behavious which effects our quaility of life and I think is also a pre-cursor to other more serious involvement in crime goes unchallenged..this brings me on to our ex soldier who detained the yobs.

The problem is that again the consensus we once had on how we should handle anti-social behaviour in our local areas has gone. We have traditionally policed by consent in this country but that consent on ethical issues is no longer as clear. Some people think young kids committing crime should get a pasting, others think they should never be physically chastised, some see this as the role of parents, some see it as the perogative of the state.

Again, the reasons for these changes are too numerous I think to discuss in this post. What is the case though is the origins of many of our criminal justice laws, stem from a time when social and political dynamics were clear and the role of victim or offender were also clear to divide.

At the moment, as these boundaries are no longer as clear and the offender' still has the same rights of the victim to be treated fairly, it literally comes down to ridiculous situations as we have seen where a spurious allegation was made against the ex-soldier by the yob and in the intersts of fairness and carrying out lawful duty, the police had to investigate this and do this as they would any other allegation by formmally detaining and questioning the ex-soldier.

Common sense says the police at the scene should have just ignored any counter allegation made by the yobs as these were obvious attempts to transfer blame back to the victim. But, if the police did this, it would mean that they would be going down the road of selecting who's version of events they accepted and who's allegation they accepted or rejected without having taken the time to enquire and secure evidence to prove what the facts of the incident were.

Thats what used to happen in the old days, an extreme example being where if a woman wearing a short skirt arrived at the police station claiming she had been raped, coppers acted as judge and jury telling her she was obviously mistaken and that sex must have been consensual as she was gagging for it and should now run along and not waste everyones time.

Even having established the facts, the police service is essentially powerless to decide who now should be charged and face prosecution as this decision has been placed firmly in the hands of the the crown prosecution service. This has reduced the police to an information and evidence gathering organisation. I agree its unfuriating but that is the system we live under.

Finally, I do genuinely think the police are adhereing to Peels principles or at least tying their best. The service certainly now cannot be accused of outward racism and prejudice in dealing with the public as it once was. What has happened though is in maintaining impartiality (including towards criminals), gaps in services have become more apparent and these sorts of incidents involving the ex-soldier have acted as a flash points to voice anger and disatisfaction with the local policing service.


Johnny
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads