The police farce.

When the police stop investigating made up hate-crimes like transgender critical tweets or youtube videos about nazi-saluting dogs, then I'll start to believe that the shite state of policing is down to an actual lack of resources

When the police get to pick and choose which crimes to investigate and prioritise they will. At the moment sadly we have to do what the law, Home Secretary and PCCs/Mayors tell us to.
 
When the police get to pick and choose which crimes to investigate and prioritise they will. At the moment sadly we have to do what the law, Home Secretary and PCCs/Mayors tell us to.

Utterly untrue - the chief constable is the *only* person who can decide police priorities, where resources are targeted or what crimes are investigated - and any demands otherwise from politicians are literally unlawful.

See Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn: CA 1968.
 
Utterly untrue - the chief constable is the *only* person who can decide police priorities, where resources are targeted or what crimes are investigated - and any demands otherwise from politicians are literally unlawful.

See Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn: CA 1968.

Does he control what gets called in and complained about?
 
Bloke I train with is a long serving copper. He was paired with a young lady who wasn't long out of training. After moving along some drunks who were causing a disturbance, she admitted she found being shouted and sworn at a bit upsetting. Her partner was somewhat less than sympathetic.

"Trust me: any night someone just shouts at you and calls you a cnut is a good shift" ;)

Ah, how reminiscent of Banner/Bogside
 
Utterly untrue - the chief constable is the *only* person who can decide police priorities, where resources are targeted or what crimes are investigated - and any demands otherwise from politicians are literally unlawful.

See Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn: CA 1968.

Utterly untrue- your words, please don't use an old piece of case law to try to back up an argument R-V- Comish ex parte Blackburn, the full case not the wiki version is about failure to prosecute gaming houses in the 60's, whilst it does provide some useful guidelines it's not what you think it is

The police are no longer the prosecuting agency, as was then, its the crown prosecution service

Policing priorities are set by govt through the national policing board, these are then passed down to PCC/Mayors who in turn pass them to their Commissioner/ Chief constable who sets a strategic policing plan.

Crikey even the Home Office decide what and what isn't a crime worthy of investigating through Home Office counting rules.

Every cop I knew and with 31 years in the job I knew a few, wanted to deal with what we knew to be the problems in our own little areas, not some strategic plan formulated by bag carriers based at HQ, but it's a disciplined organization and you do what your told.
 
Utterly untrue- your words, please don't use an old piece of case law to try to back up an argument R-V- Comish ex parte Blackburn, the full case not the wiki version is about failure to prosecute gaming houses in the 60's, whilst it does provide some useful guidelines it's not what you think it is

The police are no longer the prosecuting agency, as was then, its the crown prosecution service

Policing priorities are set by govt through the national policing board, these are then passed down to PCC/Mayors who in turn pass them to their Commissioner/ Chief constable who sets a strategic policing plan.

Crikey even the Home Office decide what and what isn't a crime worthy of investigating through Home Office counting rules.

Every cop I knew and with 31 years in the job I knew a few, wanted to deal with what we knew to be the problems in our own little areas, not some strategic plan formulated by bag carriers based at HQ, but it's a disciplined organization and you do what your told.
I’ve yet to see the rank and file protesting about being unable to get out and do some “thief taking”
 
Depends on the rank ie pension though, as well as personal motivation. Know a PC who has to work to fund the holidays, an Inspector who does p/time to get her out of the house, and a Chief Inspector who retired and builds cars with his pension.

Having said that we know another retired Chief Inspector who was told by his wife to “stop interfering with her regime at home and get a job”.
I intend to retire from the police when I reach 60, some 3 and a half years hence. The Army pension, police pension and lack of mortgage means I'll be working purely for the little luxuries. I intend to get something, either connected to the Job (speed camera van operator or front office person ) or something completely different, Tesco vans or the like. Half a regular working week leaving time for golf and stuff but enough to avoid me committing the gravest offence in the eyes of the Sainted Mrs Devex, to whit, 'Being in the way'.
 
Utterly untrue- your words, please don't use an old piece of case law to try to back up an argument R-V- Comish ex parte Blackburn, the full case not the wiki version is about failure to prosecute gaming houses in the 60's, whilst it does provide some useful guidelines it's not what you think it is

The police are no longer the prosecuting agency, as was then, its the crown prosecution service

Policing priorities are set by govt through the national policing board, these are then passed down to PCC/Mayors who in turn pass them to their Commissioner/ Chief constable who sets a strategic policing plan.

Crikey even the Home Office decide what and what isn't a crime worthy of investigating through Home Office counting rules.

Every cop I knew and with 31 years in the job I knew a few, wanted to deal with what we knew to be the problems in our own little areas, not some strategic plan formulated by bag carriers based at HQ, but it's a disciplined organization and you do what your told.

Yet, as much as you would like to decry it as ‘old caselaw’, the law hasn’t changed.

Operational policing remains entirely a matter for the chief constable, the PCC or Home Secretary cannot order him what crimes to investigate, report or deal with - and if he refuses to do what they want then the only choice is to suspend or call upon them to resign or retire.

Just the same as the fact that a constable cannot be ordered to make an arrest (see, for example, mandatory arrest, ahem, sorry, ‘positive arrest policies’ in cases of alleged DV)

The fact that so many plod are just happy to go along with it, and not have the balls to stand up to their chain of command when given unlawful orders, just shows how bad the rot is.
 
Last edited:
Yet, as much as you would like to decry it as ‘old caselaw’, the law hasn’t changed.

Operational policing remains entirely a matter for the chief constable, the PCC or Home Secretary cannot order him what crimes to investigate, report or deal with - and if he refuses to do what they want then the only choice is to suspend or call upon them to resign or retire.
Errrr, you contradict yourself. You say the PCC or HS cannot order him what to do then say they can sack him for not doing what they say.

Make your mind up or (preferably) stop blethering on.
 
Utterly untrue - the chief constable is the *only* person who can decide police priorities, where resources are targeted or what crimes are investigated - and any demands otherwise from politicians are literally unlawful.

See Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn: CA 1968.

And how do you think they get to Chief Constable or remain there? If they lose the confidence of the Home Secretary or their local PCC/Mayor not very long is the answer.
I’ll deal with the reality that exists and that I’m painfully aware of, as a working police officer as opposed to caselaw that’s almost sixty years old. The Home Office reporting standards changed under May effectively state that if someone thinks a crime has occurred it has. And you can either fight tooth and nail to no crime it and probably lose anyway, or you go the quicker route and bang out a statement and crime report which you then immediately close as not in the public interest or no suspect etc and further f**k the crime stats. Is also the same deal with hate crime, if someone thinks it’s a hate crime it is. Considering hate crimes are immediately flagged for duty Inspector’s attention you’d better have a good excuse for why as a section Sergeant you’re not deploying someone to it.
Is it the right way to police? Almost certainly not but frankly I’m not willing to go down in flames fighting the system and neither it seems does anyone else. Oh until they retire then they run to the press to have a good chunt with their pension nice and safe.
 
Is it the right way to police? Almost certainly not but frankly I’m not willing to go down in flames fighting the system and neither it seems does anyone else. Oh until they retire then they run to the press to have a good chunt with their pension nice and safe.

And there you sum it up

LMF
 
I intend to retire from the police when I reach 60, some 3 and a half years hence. The Army pension, police pension and lack of mortgage means I'll be working purely for the little luxuries. I intend to get something, either connected to the Job (speed camera van operator or front office person ) or something completely different, Tesco vans or the like. Half a regular working week leaving time for golf and stuff but enough to avoid me committing the gravest offence in the eyes of the Sainted Mrs Devex, to whit, 'Being in the way'.
Reminds me of the good old days in the HM Prison Service when uniformed Screws could retire at 55 (decent pension for all those recruited prior to Fresh Start in 1987 ish). (Normally at least Senior Officer/Principle Officer Rank, i.e. giving the Basic Grade Officers, OSG's, and other less mortals SH1T jobs such as vehicle vehicle escorts etc).

They would spent thier last 6 months by giving it the big one, days to do getting few etc, once I am out I am out, looking for a Villa in Espania, pre-release type course, taking outstanding leave/TOIL, lack of interest in the job going through the motions etc etc etc.

The Monday following thier retirement on the Friday you would see them stagging on as Operational Support Grade (OSG) doing the vehicle escorts and other SH1T jobs!!!!! (Some would forget that once they retired so did thier previous held rank!!!!!).

When asked why the response was 'Missing the job, just toping up the pension, need to spend some time away from the Wifey etc'. 'Thank F*ck, I was given my marching orders when I was 45 so I could not hang on if I wanted to'.
 
And there you sum it up

LMF

Right so we’re back to where I originally was. It’s the politicians fault. You want policing to change vote in those who will actually invest in the CJS and support the various branches of it beyond a few empty words and the occasional memorial.
Would you expect Privates, JNCOs or NCOs to tell Colonels and Generals to poke it because they don’t like how they want things done? No? Then why are you expecting PCs and PS’ to do any different?
 
Are cops taught in training school about camera phones? Judging by some of the reactions to them on social media it appears not.
Like it or not, society is now full of arm chair lawyers. As soon as someone is stopped or approached by a cop, it seems the normal reaction is to reach for their phone and film. ( Think Dawn Butler last year).
If you don’t want to be filmed in public, I’d suggest not going into a public role.
As I said, I fully appreciate that having a phone stuck in your face is bloody annoying, but sadly that ain’t going to change.
The Jim Davidson lookalike cop in the video, threw his toys out his pram because the guy was filming him, it just made him look an idiot and appear on social media.
His colleague, looked 8 stone piss weight through and looked like he had just left school.
God help us if this is the normal standard of bobbies on the beat.
 
And how do you think they get to Chief Constable or remain there? If they lose the confidence of the Home Secretary or their local PCC/Mayor not very long is the answer.
I’ll deal with the reality that exists and that I’m painfully aware of, as a working police officer as opposed to caselaw that’s almost sixty years old. The Home Office reporting standards changed under May effectively state that if someone thinks a crime has occurred it has. And you can either fight tooth and nail to no crime it and probably lose anyway, or you go the quicker route and bang out a statement and crime report which you then immediately close as not in the public interest or no suspect etc and further f**k the crime stats. Is also the same deal with hate crime, if someone thinks it’s a hate crime it is. Considering hate crimes are immediately flagged for duty Inspector’s attention you’d better have a good excuse for why as a section Sergeant you’re not deploying someone to it.
Is it the right way to police? Almost certainly not but frankly I’m not willing to go down in flames fighting the system and neither it seems does anyone else. Oh until they retire then they run to the press to have a good chunt with their pension nice and safe.
This, exactly. There are even people whose job is to trawl reports to find extra crimes to record, so afraid are the powers that be of being accused of under recording. As @DrunkenIrish says, you cannot fight the system so when Colonel (Ret) Herbert Knicker-Sniffer writes to the Loamshire Times complaining about the lack of bobbies on the beat in Lower Bottomspank he can take solace in the amount of time recording all these crimes actually takes. I would say 50% of the logs on our filter at any given times relate to "Harassment/Threats" via social media.
 
Are cops taught in training school about camera phones? Judging by some of the reactions to them on social media it appears not.
Like it or not, society is now full of arm chair lawyers. As soon as someone is stopped or approached by a cop, it seems the normal reaction is to reach for their phone and film. ( Think Dawn Butler last year).
If you don’t want to be filmed in public, I’d suggest not going into a public role.
As I said, I fully appreciate that having a phone stuck in your face is bloody annoying, but sadly that ain’t going to change.
The Jim Davidson lookalike cop in the video, threw his toys out his pram because the guy was filming him, it just made him look an idiot and appear on social media.
His colleague, looked 8 stone piss weight through and looked like he had just left school.
God help us if this is the normal standard of bobbies on the beat.
We didn't receive any specific training, though in exercises there would often be a phone wielding spoiler.
The approach I've developed to the "I'm filming this" brigade is to say, firstly "So am I" while activating my BWV if not already on and to tell them "I have no problem with you filming, but if you get in my way you'll get nicked for obstruction". Only had to follow through on that threat once.
 

Latest Threads

Top