Police gone soft?

lextalionis

Old-Salt
Increasingly, offenders are seriously mentally-ill and/or drug abusers, to a much larger proportion than in the good old days. In considering earlier suggestions by arrsers, the question remains, would a present-day jury convict an armed robber if the alleged robber faced a mandatory death sentence for being armed? So, the return of Diplock-style courts? That will be popular I'm sure . . . The best that can be hoped for is a strong increase in numbers of police officers (including armed-response bods), an increase in (and massive improvement in security of) prison places, an increase in mental health provision and a prudent simplification of legislation. None of which will happen, but never mind, I emigrated.

You seem to be hearing voices. I did not argue for those things.

Prisons should be places of punishment without the rife violence, sex and drug abuse now found in those dreadful places. Reopen mental hospitals for the mentally ill - I'm no monster. Thatcher closed the asylums (while leaving the House of Commons open for business).

For the mentally well-enough, prison should be austere - humane but a place of punishment and shame. If that means being more heavy-handed with prisoners and more rigid with discipline, so be it. No one should want to go back, but no one should be abused either.
 

RiffRaff

Swinger
I might also suggest that with the massive rise if knife crime in the last decade it's has got even higher!! So those nice cuddly, pathetic abolitionists have an awful lot of blood on their hands!


And what would the murder-rate be if present-day knife crime victims received 1960s medical treatment?
 
You seem to be hearing voices. I did not argue for those things.

Prisons should be places of punishment without the rife violence, sex and drug abuse now found in those dreadful places. Reopen mental hospitals for the mentally ill - I'm no monster. Thatcher closed the asylums (while leaving the House of Commons open for business).

For the mentally well-enough, prison should be austere - humane but a place of punishment and shame. If that means being more heavy-handed with prisoners and more rigid with discipline, so be it. No one should want to go back, but no one should be abused either.
What would help is preventing drugs getting into prisons in the first place.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
What would help is preventing drugs getting into prisons in the first place.
No contact visits; solitary confinement de rigueur; prisoners facing the wall when outside of their cell; mandatory testing ( e.g. weekly) on a very regular basis; severe punishments not only for supply but possession (loss of six months' remission).
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
Here's a question I've wondered about: Why is the system of police ranks quite "coarse".

By "coarse", I mean not having many fine distinctions between the ranks. The ranking system, as I understand it, goes like this:

1. Constable
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector
4. Chief Inspector
5. Superintendent
6. Chief Superintendent
7. Commander
8. Assistant Commissioner.
9. Commissioner.

Is that correct? If so, it's just 9 ranks to span the entire command structure, from lowest to highest.
I'm especially concerned about the lowest 3 ranks:

1. Constable.
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector.

These show a big jump from initial "Constable", to officer-class"Inspector", in just 2 steps.

That's a surprising contrast to the lower command structure of the Army, which is more nuanced. There you have, in the lower ranks:

1. Private
2. Lance-Corporal
3. Corporal
4. Sergeant
5. Sergeant-Major
6. Second-Lieutenant.

So you have to take 5 steps to get from initial "Private", to officer-class "2nd Lieutenant". I believe the situation is similar in the Navy and RAF.

Is there any significance in this?
 
Here's a question I've wondered about: Why is the system of police ranks quite "coarse".

By "coarse", I mean not having many fine distinctions between the ranks. The ranking system, as I understand it, goes like this:

1. Constable
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector
4. Chief Inspector
5. Superintendent
6. Chief Superintendent
7. Commander
8. Assistant Commissioner.
9. Commissioner.

Is that correct? If so, it's just 9 ranks to span the entire command structure, from lowest to highest.
I'm especially concerned about the lowest 3 ranks:

1. Constable.
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector.

These show a big jump from initial "Constable", to officer-class"Inspector", in just 2 steps.

That's a surprising contrast to the lower command structure of the Army, which is more nuanced. There you have, in the lower ranks:

1. Private
2. Lance-Corporal
3. Corporal
4. Sergeant
5. Sergeant-Major
6. Second-Lieutenant.

So you have to take 5 steps to get from initial "Private", to officer-class "2nd Lieutenant". I believe the situation is similar in the Navy and RAF.

Is there any significance in this?
No, and who gives a shit anyhow.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
Here's a question I've wondered about: Why is the system of police ranks quite "coarse".

By "coarse", I mean not having many fine distinctions between the ranks. The ranking system, as I understand it, goes like this:

1. Constable
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector
4. Chief Inspector
5. Superintendent
6. Chief Superintendent
7. Commander
8. Assistant Commissioner.
9. Commissioner.

Is that correct? If so, it's just 9 ranks to span the entire command structure, from lowest to highest.
I'm especially concerned about the lowest 3 ranks:

1. Constable.
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector.

These show a big jump from initial "Constable", to officer-class"Inspector", in just 2 steps.

That's a surprising contrast to the lower command structure of the Army, which is more nuanced. There you have, in the lower ranks:

1. Private
2. Lance-Corporal
3. Corporal
4. Sergeant
5. Sergeant-Major
6. Second-Lieutenant.

So you have to take 5 steps to get from initial "Private", to officer-class "2nd Lieutenant". I believe the situation is similar in the Navy and RAF.

Is there any significance in this?
Yes, there is. Peel wanted to keep "officer types" out of the police to prevent them becoming anything other than public servants. This policy went into reverse from the 1960s onwards through the creation of centralised training and a "staff college" of sorts and the growing influence of the home office.

The reversal was primarily ideological. The working-class types that had normally filled the ranks had quite solid, conservative ideas quite averse to -ology graduates who decided to change everything (with predictably disastrous results). The historical absence of an officer class helped keep the police remarkably effective for an incredibly long time. Its adoption has turned it into a pathetic shadow of its former self - an army of paramilitary social-workers.
 
Here's a question I've wondered about: Why is the system of police ranks quite "coarse".

By "coarse", I mean not having many fine distinctions between the ranks. The ranking system, as I understand it, goes like this:

1. Constable
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector
4. Chief Inspector
5. Superintendent
6. Chief Superintendent
7. Commander
8. Assistant Commissioner.
9. Commissioner.

Is that correct? If so, it's just 9 ranks to span the entire command structure, from lowest to highest.
I'm especially concerned about the lowest 3 ranks:

1. Constable.
2. Sergeant
3. Inspector.

These show a big jump from initial "Constable", to officer-class"Inspector", in just 2 steps.

That's a surprising contrast to the lower command structure of the Army, which is more nuanced. There you have, in the lower ranks:

1. Private
2. Lance-Corporal
3. Corporal
4. Sergeant
5. Sergeant-Major
6. Second-Lieutenant.

So you have to take 5 steps to get from initial "Private", to officer-class "2nd Lieutenant". I believe the situation is similar in the Navy and RAF.

Is there any significance in this?
Both of your lists are wrong.
You have used the Met Police rank structure and missed out Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
Outside of London other forces have a slightly different chief officer ranking system
Sergeant Major is an appointment not a rank which is held by both WO2s and WO1s.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
You get the behaviour you reward; don't hope for A, while you reward B.

With those in mind, do as you will.
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
Yes, there is. Peel wanted to keep "officer types" out of the police to prevent them becoming anything other than public servants. This policy went into reverse from the 1960s onwards through the creation of centralised training and a "staff college" of sorts and the growing influence of the home office.

The reversal was primarily ideological. The working-class types that had normally filled the ranks had quite solid, conservative ideas quite averse to -ology graduates who decided to change everything (with predictably disastrous results). The historical absence of an officer class helped keep the police remarkably effective for an incredibly long time. Its adoption has turned it into a pathetic shadow of its former self - an army of paramilitary social-workers.
Excellent and illuminating post. Thanks!
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
Excellent and illuminating post. Thanks!
You are most welcome.

It's illuminating to compare today's plod with the plod of yore. Those working-class characters could be quite robust characters, not averse to "feeling the collar" of some local ruffian. Brian Paddick (for it is she) went quite the other way, indulging the worst habits of the self-indulgent bourgeoisie and condemning Brixton to still great violence and order than it had known. There was no indulgence of the awful, wicked vagrants that plague today's streets. The law was enforced and, lo and behold, there was much less of a problem.

I hope there are enough left of the old type to fill the ranks if and when the 'ologites are given the sack.
 
You seem to be hearing voices. I did not argue for those things.

Prisons should be places of punishment without the rife violence, sex and drug abuse now found in those dreadful places. Reopen mental hospitals for the mentally ill - I'm no monster. Thatcher closed the asylums (while leaving the House of Commons open for business).

For the mentally well-enough, prison should be austere - humane but a place of punishment and shame. If that means being more heavy-handed with prisoners and more rigid with discipline, so be it. No one should want to go back, but no one should be abused either.
Nothing to do with any posts by you don't worry. We seem to agree on an 'improved' direction to go, along with most other people I suspect.

ETA: Not that anything will improve, it would be too expensive during the new recession, for an assumed solely financial meaning of the word 'expensive'.
 
Last edited:
In days of yore only the very senior officers were appointed and were often retired staff officers. Everyone else worked their way up.
 
You are most welcome.

It's illuminating to compare today's plod with the plod of yore. Those working-class characters could be quite robust characters, not averse to "feeling the collar" of some local ruffian. Brian Paddick (for it is she) went quite the other way, indulging the worst habits of the self-indulgent bourgeoisie and condemning Brixton to still great violence and order than it had known. There was no indulgence of the awful, wicked vagrants that plague today's streets. The law was enforced and, lo and behold, there was much less of a problem.

I hope there are enough left of the old type to fill the ranks if and when the 'ologites are given the sack.
I think that might be a forlorn hope. As it was explained to me by a police officer, new recruits will, as part of their training, have to complete a degree in Policing. I can't help but think Jack Regan wouldn't be overly impressed.
N.B. I don't know if this applies to Specials, although presumably it should.
 
Last edited:

lextalionis

Old-Salt
I think that might be a forlorn hope. As it was explained to me by a police officer, new recruits will, as part of their training, have to complete a degree in Policing. I can't help but think Jack Regan wouldn't be overly impressed.
N.B. I don't know if this applies to Specials.
I'm not sure quite what a degree in policing - three years of "study" and training - would involve. Six months on reading rights? Three months on handcuffing? The mind boggles. For all the degrees and "training", they seem much less effective than in the days of Dixon of Dock Green.

I think the police in this country, like the country itself, are kaput. I'm plotting my escape to sunnier climes.
 
You are most welcome.

It's illuminating to compare today's plod with the plod of yore. Those working-class characters could be quite robust characters, not averse to "feeling the collar" of some local ruffian. Brian Paddick (for it is she) went quite the other way, indulging the worst habits of the self-indulgent bourgeoisie and condemning Brixton to still great violence and order than it had known. There was no indulgence of the awful, wicked vagrants that plague today's streets. The law was enforced and, lo and behold, there was much less of a problem.

I hope there are enough left of the old type to fill the ranks if and when the 'ologites are given the sack.
I remember when Lord Paddock of Manfondling was a PC I was in the same section house. Back then he was straight and a PC at one of the most aggressive, hard nicks in the Met where he was accepted by the blue monsters he worked with. As a new probationer he was certainly less abrasive to me than some of the other monsters in the section house. He went out with women, went on the piss with the blokes and was a pretty good egg. Dunno where the rot set in, my own theory is that he decided he needed an edge to get to the top, he wasn't black or female a sex change was a bit radical so being a sausage jockey was the only viable option and the rest is history
 

poo_finger

Old-Salt
I would definitely argue against the Police having gone soft, 3 (unarmed) ex squaddies in my force took down a knife wielding bloke in mental health crisis afew weeks ago folding him up like a piece of ikea furniture before he even knew what the hell was going on. I know the others on their shifts feel a lot safer having us types on duty with them, as our attitude to risk is generally a lot different.
The police are a reflection of society, much like the military. Predominantly our hands are tied by rules and regulations, but I still wade into danger as quickly as I did when I wore a leafy suit. Albeit I am a lot happier trying to de-escalate a situation by talking, as that is what society demands from us!

Rest assured that the capability to ‘go red’ is still there if needed!
 

Latest Threads

Top