Blog of the Blogs

Another bag of shit job

2006-05-19T07:43:00.000+01:00

The officer over at 200 Weeks lists the standard fare of jobs that any police officer is likely to get, and on being passed immediately say to his or her colleague "God, another shit job". He gives four good examples on his site, which are absolutely nothing new or unusual, and are recognised fare of the crap that we have to deal with. We can expect one a day, three if we've really annoyed the dispatcher! I'll add some of mine from my last set:

1 - "My neighbour keeps letting my dog piss on the street in front of my house"
2 - "My ex-boyfriend is telling our children that I caused our break up when he looks after them and trying to make them hate me"
3 - "My neighbour called me a slag so I punched her in self defence and she hit me back. I want her done"
4 - "I've been assaulted by bouncers who threw me out for no reason, I want them done."

Every single one of the last four jobs I was sent to, as part of a double crewed car. Now, I'll admit, I'm a risk taker. When I get sent to an obviously shit job, I'll do my best to deal with it as quickly as possible, without wasting our time taking a ridiculous crime report about a situation which SHOULD be dealt with simply by saying "Grow up" or "Take some responsibility for your actions." This is major risk-taking on my part, because I could get into real trouble with supervision if I didn't treat the above jobs in the following way:

1 - Consider criming matter as harassment if the 'victim' feels the neighbour is delibrately doing this to annoy them. Crime report. Statement. Arrest neighbour. Interview neighbour. Bail neighbour for CPS advice. Full file (for the unitinitiated, think of a full file as a file that will take about four hours to put together, if you are lucky and have all the info you need.)
2 - There were no offences that I could see in this one, but we got sent anyway as it had the 'domestic' tag. I was comfortable to easily write this one off, though I'm expecting the standard email asking me to justify why my name is on a log marked as domestic with no arrest. (This is standard course of practice at my station)
3 - Crime report for assault on 'victim'. Statement from 'victim'. Arrest neighbour. Hear obvious counter allegations. Arrest 'victim'. Put up with abuse from 'victim' for arresting 'victim'. Put up with abuse from custody sergeant for making arrests in this shit job. Interview 'victim'. Interview 'offender'. Tell custody sergeant result of interview, knowing before you start its going to be no further action. Release both no further action. Explain to 'victim' the procedure for making a complaint against me for arresting her.
4 - Crime report for assault. Take details of bouncers on the door (our station policy is not to arrest bouncers on door for any assault that would be charged as a Section 39 (minor) assault, but to interview and arrest at later date. Seize CCTV. Arrange for unit to visit 'victim' in morning when sober. 'Victim' visited, statement taken or more likely no compliant made as hes reflected on his actions and accepts that he wasn't kicked out 'for doing nothing'. Either way, that magic crime report has been taken, so arrest offender. Interview offender. No further action if no complaint. CPS advice if complaint, then no further action (unless independent evidence such as CCTV other witness available, in which case bail for full file).

My god, its taken about twnety hours just to write what I should have done, so God knows how long it would have actually taken to do that! Heres what I actually did.

1 - Wrote off job as "Caller is annoyed at neighbours dog urinating in public street. Explained no offences, but advice given to neighbour anyway."
2 - Wrote off job as "No offences disclosed. Domestic referral form to be completed as per policy."
3 - I would have explained to the victim that if she made a complaint she would also have to be arrested for her part, which would have doubtless made her decide not to complain, in which case I would have written the job off as "Verbal altercation between neighbours. No offences." (Theres the risk I was talking about, because as explained we did techinically have two or three offences). However, neighbour had told the operator over the phone the whole story, including the assault on her and the assault she committed, so I did this one by the book and followed the above route two. It took two officers five hours.
4 - Attended, spoke to 'victim' who had no injuries, but a torn shirt. He stormed over stating "That f*****g fat c**t there threw me out for no reason. Thats assault." I asked "Whats actually happened?", throwing in a section five warning (no swearing or get arrested). 'Victim' explains that he was asked to leave by bouncers. He told them to 'f**k off', because he 'Hadn't done nothing'. I resisted the tmptation to point out the double negative. They asked him again to leave, he refused again, so they 'grabbed me and they had to drag me out off there, which ripped my shirt, and they battered me' I explained to 'victim' that bouncers can ask you to leave the premises for any reason, and he should have left. I add I can see no injuries of any sort on him let alone any consistent with a 'battering' and that their actions were a lawful ejection.
Ended up writing off log as "No offences from club. Lawful ejection, no injuries to caller just a ripped shirt due to the fact that he refused to leave when asked. However, caller has been arrested for a section 5." (On explaining the above to the caller, it resulted in about three further warnings, me being called a c**t and the inevitable arrest after the "I'll f*****g sort it out myself then, you don't know who I know".

The government who introduce a 'Common Sense' or 'Return of Discretion' bill to allow the police to actually use common sense will win my vote, and the vote of almost every serving police officer for life.

Acting like animals?

2006-05-10T03:27:00.000+01:00

A post from Cough The Lot has made me want to put a quick plug in for something I believe in. I know this is opening me up for a possible flaming on the comments, but I believe in animal testing, and in the considerable advancements made to science by it.

I also think that Laurie Pycroft, who set up Pro Test is a very brave individual who earns my respect 100 times over. He doesn't deserve the death threats he inevitably got for puting across his point of view. Animal testing saves lives.

Please remember the usual blurb - these are my personal views and are not the views of the police as a whole.

Fighting Talk

2006-05-05T15:50:00.000+01:00

Another Constable tells a tale of abuse from a prisoner that every single officer will be well aware of. In fact, its likely that we've all locked up a prisoner who read from pretty much the same script as his.

The threats Another Constable got are standard fare. To say that you don't get annoyed by prisoner like this would be a lie - of course you do. It would take a very strange person to honestly say that they could take the amount of abuse he describes without any emotion. You just don't let it get to you though, and its really not worth flaring up over it, or shouting back. Now, the truly professional officer would of course sit back, ignore it and take it, however I have to admit that there are things I've overheard in my time which not only shut up the abusive prisoner, but made me smile too. I'm not in any way condoning them as good practice(!), but for amusements sake heres some of them:

1) A prisoner locked up on a Friday/Saturday night, mouthing off, general abuse. PC reading out list of property to the custody sergeant for the custody record. "Two condoms sarge, expiry date 2002."

2) A Scottish prisoner with a particulary thick accent, screaming "I'll f*****g f**k ya, ya c**t, I'll f**k ya mum, c**t etc." In the first small pause while he catches his breath, the arresting officer says "Don't worry mate, we'll get you an interpreter as soon as we get to the cell block."

3) A prisoner brought back in on a van, offering abuse to his arresting officer the whole way, most of it centred around the fact the officer is overweight. On arrival at the cellblock, after being put into the cell, the prisoner shouts "How the f**k did you get so fat you p***k?". Officer replies "Every time your girlfriend has sex with me, she brings me a Mars bar."

4) Two prisoners in a van arrested after a football match for public order offences. One has APAC tatooed on his knuckles. The other has four dots tatooed on his. An officer asks "What does that stand for?" pointing to the APAC. The prisoner snarls back "All Police Are C***s". The officer politely replies "Ah, I see, I see." The officer turns to the second male and point to the four dots. "What does that stand for?". The male snarls back "All Police Are C***s". Officer replies "Oh I see, its just that you can't spell is it?"

5) Prisoner in van yelling at arresting officer "You f*****g like me or summat? You put these handcuffs on cause you wanna f**k me? Come on then, f**k me! F**k me up the arse! You know you want to! S**g my arse, you know you're gay!" Officer "Yeah I am actually." Prisoner falls silent then murmurs "Don't f**k me" before remaining silent for entire of trip back.

6) Prisoner place into caged van handcuffed to rear. Shouts out on way back "I can f*****g get out of these handcuffs no problem." Officer shouts back "Don't be silly, no you can't." When rear van cage opened at nick, sheepish prisoner waddles out and into the nick in a crouching position, arms firmly stuck behind his knees. He'd tried to step through the cuffs, got them past his bum but wasn't flexible enough to get them past his feet, or back to where they were :)

As I said, I'm not advocating any of these 'tactics' as useful in any way, or to be used. But they made me smile :)

Cough it up

2006-04-27T19:52:00.000+01:00

The editor over at Cough the Lot recently put in a post complaining about the lack of action over a local drunk he has had to arrest a number of times recently. He comments on how this particular 'gentleman' has breached his bail conditions 15 times, and yet every time he is only released with the same conditions again.

The editors says "I am ignorant of the ways of the court but would somebody please explain to me how this lunatic can regularly break the law on a weekly, sometimes daily basis and still be allowed free?"

Well, I would have replied on the site, in the comments, but theres some silly system meaning I'd have to register somewhere and then log in first, so I couldn;t be bothered with that ;)

The answers a simple one. People who have absolutely no regard for the law, justice or (more importantly) prison cannot be dealt with by our systems. The worst penalty we can impose is prison. If this is something which you have absolutely no regard for, treating prison in the way the honest member of public may treat going to work, theres nothing our justice system can ever do to stop you. This is noticed, recognised and so eventually the justice system gives up, as why bother filling the prisons with people like this? Please don't bring up the sensible reason of 'protecting the public', it'll only be swept under the carpet.

The message the courts seem to send out to me is "Oh, sod it. Prison doesn't work on you because you don't care about it, just ignore him and lets move on. He'll only be back tomorrow anyway, let the magistrates tomorrow deal with him."

The honest answers

2006-04-22T18:19:00.000+01:00

Lennie Briscoe recently had a post in which he posted some quotes from his boss, asking questions and commenting about the police. I'd decided to answer all of these as honestly as I can to aid him, and any others with the same problems.

1.If we [the police] spent less time hiding in bushes with speed cameras then we would catch more criminals"
Ok, at our station we have (counts in head, this many shifts, this many on each shift adds up...) about 130 frontline officers. I'm not counting any "police officers" who are not frontline. About 10 of these are traffic officers. These are the only ones allowed to play with the speed laser guns. From what I can tell, they set up speed traps approximately once every two to three months. Could we really spend less time?

2."If we [the police] didn't spend so much time putting up speed cameras to catch the law abiding we could catch more criminals"
We (the police) don't put up the speed cameras. Perhaps some high up Chief Constable somewhere has some say in the matter, based on government suggestions, but the standard police officer has absolutely nothing to do with them and hate them as much as you do.

3. "Do you know that when PC Sharon Beshenivsky was murdered, a caller on a radio program told listeners that he refused to cooperate with police asking for information on her killer because he no longer trusted the police and didn’t care to help”
No, I didn't know that. But I'd put my entire mortgage on the fact that the caller didn't trust the police because he was a criminal that had been caught by them. And I'd place that bet at odds of 1/1000 if you offered them.

4. “Tony Martin the farmer who shot the burglar should be awarded a medal”
Some police officers would agree with you. We are bound to act as is the law. If you want the law changed, complain about the government. It currently says you cannot shoot someone who is running away from you after burgling your property. Therefore we can't just ignore someone doing this, whatever our personal feelings on the matter.

5. “The hit and run driver who recently killed a medical student and only owned up after the media publish photos of her deceased body 8 months later got 18 months. This isn’t justice.”
I agree. I've done a fuller post about driving problems like this, but in this particular case my personal feeling are to agree wholeheartedly with you. I may have felt slightly differently if he had stopped to try and save her. Slightly.

6. “The current socialist government [Labour] don’t understand that when the prisons are full, we need more prisons not shorter sentences or more community punishments.”
You are 100% smack on the money. Completely right. Absolutely, and you won't find a single police officer who will say to you "No, prisons not the answer". We are out of space now, and yes, it may take three years to build more prisons - but we'll still be out of space in three years.

7. “Why do some police drive round in BMW 5 series?”
Because they are part of a smaller, highly funded department (firearms, traffic) and are the envy of every frontline officer driving about in his 1.0d Austin Rover.

8. “The public simply do not trust the police any more”
If that is true its a shame. However, some of the police no longer trust the public either. Honesty and good manners are not a part of todays society, and the police can't be blamed for that.

Why we don't use common sense

2006-04-22T18:01:00.000+01:00

In response to a post of mine, anonymous* said "It is time that the Police stopped taking these frivilous complaints seriously, they should start using common sence."

Here a story of how things could have gone...

Cast:
CMOP - Concerned member of public
CSupt - Chief Superintendant
Sgt - Sarge
PC - PC Sense, our hero

(Phone rings in PC Sense's office)
CMOP: Hi I'd like to register a complaint. I've seen a gollywog in a shop window. I think they are racist and I want to complain.
PC Sense: Hmm, its only a toy - are you sure you want to complain?
CMOP: Yes. I find them racist
PC Sense: Ok, I'll create a log about this, but theres really nothing that we can do about this. They are only toys after all, and I am investigating 3 assaults, 1 domestic and an harassment at the moment.
CMOP: (Hangs up)

(Approximately 30 minutes later)
Sgt: PC Sense? We've had a complaint about you. Apparently you refused to take a complaint of racial abuse earlier.
PC Sense: (laughing) What, the gollywogs?

(stunned silence settles in the busy office)
Sgt: What? What did you just say?
PC Sense: (scared now) I was just asking if it was about the gollywogs...
Sgt: (leaning over, stern, all eyes in office now looking on in horror) The TERM, Pc SENSE, is GOLLY.
PC Sense: Sorry sarge.
Sgt: Why didn't you crime this matter. Are you racist Sense?
PC Sense: No sarge! But, lets use common sense sarge, theres no real offences there!
Sgt: (shouting) Common sense! Common sense?! This is the LAW boy, under home office counting rules if someone tells you about a crime you have no choice but to crime it! NO CHOICE! (calming down) Ok, I can't get you out of this one, I'll have to put a report in to the CSupt.

(Approx 30 mins later, in the CSupt's office)

CSupt: SO PC Sense, I have here a serious complaint from a CMOP and your Sgt of racist corruption. What do you have to say in your defence?
PC Sense: Erm, aren't I allowed a fed rep with me?
CSupt: Aha! So you are a racist! Why else would you want one?
PC Sense: No, no! Um, I don't want one I've done nothing wrong.
CSupt: You didn't crime it.
PC Sense: Ok, so _technically_ I did that wrong, but I was only using common sense.
CSupt: You do what the home office tells you to!
PC Sense: But I only didn;t crime it because if I crimed it we'd have to investigate.
CSupt: Nonsense, the home office only says we must crime the offences, the choice of the investigation we undertake is ours.
PC Sense: But sir, a racially aggravated section 5 is a racist violence offence, and so we'd be forced to investigate and detect it to stop our figures looking bad, regardless of what was obviously the right way to deal with it, which in this case would have just been to inform the shopkeeper about it and leave it with them. We'd be forced to find an offender and either charge or caution them to get the detection. Theres no CHANCE we'd be allowed not to investigate it.
CSupt: ...

Headlines next day: Racist Police Officer fired!

* Ok, seriously guys, can no one think up a funny pseudo name? I'm getting so bloody bored with all these anonymous's!

Death Penalties?

2006-04-22T17:47:00.000+01:00

The Magistrates Blog has written recently regarding penalties given to drivers who, through little other than simple bad driving have ended up causing the death of someone else. In most of these cases quoted, drink was not an issue, nor was malice - it was simply a mistake, that cost someone the ultimate price.

So what of the sentences? Lennie Briscoe, the very well written special constable felt that 2 years for the driver mentioned was too lenient. You can see his point of view - through that womans actions she caused the death of 3 children and one adult. It was entirely her fault for chosing to drive the way she did.

But is she inherently bad? Is she a criminal? (Forget for a second the technicality that she has been sentence for a criminal offence, you know what I mean) Shes never going to appear on police briefing systems as 'Most Wanted'. Prior to her accident, police weren't desparately looking for her car as her driving was bad enough to kill.

The simple fact here is that cars kill. They are lethal weapons, and people are given access to them with very little training (3 months average for what, 60 years at the wheel?). You can pass a test in a 1.0 diesel Mini Metro, and instantly have the right to jump into a 3.0 litre Subaru Impreza. You only have to demonstrate adherence to the laws for a 30 minute test with an instructor before you develop your own driving style.

The average driver sucks. They really do. The first thing I realised when I took my police driving courses was quite how bad I was at driving - and I thought before then that I had been pretty good. The only way to actually prevent these sorts of fatal road collisions is for everyone to drive as you would be taught to on an advanced driving course - unfortunately thats never going to happen.

I always remember something I was once told - the best deterrent to speeding would be to outlaw seatbelts and put a large spike on the middle of the steering wheel. People would drive a bit more carefully then. I am almost tempted to suggest that if someone is found to be at fault for two road traffic collisions, they lose their licence automatically for s short period (3 months), and have to take an extended retest including an advanced driving course. Hell, charge em for it - the government can made it self financing like most of the road penalties!

To come back to my original point, I don't know where I stand on the sentence of 2 years for the driver in question. Anyone taking our lives by any other means would be looking at five to ten times that amount, but simply because the average driver is a danger behind the wheel, people have sympathy for them.

Copper's eye view

2006-04-05T09:31:00.000+01:00

I saw the news recently highlighting the use of a new piece of equipment for the police - a 'head camera' which an officer wears on his head, which will then record images and sounds from his perspective. The news item hihglighted how useful it was in a domestic violence case, with some convincing clips also. We've been told about this camera at our station also, and a couple of them have been bought. There has been mixed views from my colleagues. Some are whole heartedly for them (promotion chasers), some are to busy to care either way (front-line officers), and a small minority hate the idea of them (better remember not to swear at your customers!).

Personally, my view is that they are a good bit of kit. I don't like the idea of them being permanently on, without being able to switch them off, otherwise for an entire 10 hour shift no one will talk to me, leaving me alone to wander about in silence! I wouldn't particularly want to wear one - but thats only because I think it'll make me look like a tit! Mind you, I have the same feeling about the ridiculous design of our police custodian helmets, and I have to wear them. :)

PCSO - Every Little Helps!

2006-03-22T23:17:00.000Z

Plenty of my fellow bloggers are speaking about PCSO's lately (Lights, Sirens, Action and The Monkey) and in particular the government's plans to introduce another 10,000 of them.

When PCSO's were first mentioned, the public were assured that they were not "policing on the cheap", but just a dynamic, pro-active, re-active hyperwhatsisface way of dealing with modern crime. Yeah right...

They ARE policing on the cheap - theres no argument there, and most of the PCSO's that I know acknowledge this happily with us. However, that doesn't mean they are a bad idea: like most things, there are the positive and negatives to PCSO patrol. On the positive side, they do the job they are employed to do very well, they are excellent for hi-visibility public policing, they reassure the public by showing more police officers on the street. They know all the faces of the local criminals, and submit the neatest encounter forms you've ever seen!

The main problem with PCSO's is the fact that they have no actual powers. This means two things 1) The government pays them less than they would an officer, as they are "non-confrontational" and 2) If a PCSO actually spots something happening which can't be dealt with by a smile and a stop, they call for a police officer to join them.

Thus, you regularly get the following problem. All ten response officers on duty are tied up with their shoplifters, domestics, drunks etc, with no units available. All ten PCSO's are wandering about the town centre. Two PCSOs spot an assault in progress, shout up over the radio - and theres no one to turn out. Two more find a well known criminal, and shout up that they think an officer might be needed to search said youth (on what grounds you'll never know until you get there!). Two more are approached by someone reporting a crime - can we have an officer here too?

PCSO's look good on paper, and as I said before, do what they are paid to do very well. Its just unfortunate that a side effect of their actions is to stretch out a response shift which went well past snapping point two hours into the shift. Whats the solution to this? More police officers would be a start. Unfortunately, thats unlikely as the budget just got blown on 10,000 more PCSO's - who will also all be calling for more officers to deal with the job they've found...

In summary - PCSO's would be a tremendous benefit to the police, IF we had enough actual officers first. Unfortunately, we don;t have enough police, and so the governments solution to this is hire more PCSO's, as you can get more of them for your money.

Channel Four-go a fair hearing...

2006-03-16T16:32:00.000Z

Thanks to The Policeman's Blog for this one. If you've already seen footage of Olufemi Ijeeboude's arrest, then the rest of this post won't work for you. But if you haven't, I urge you to take part in the following test for me. Hell, try it even if you've seen it.

Switch off your speakers first, and then click on the link above and watch the news footage without sound. Watch it carefully. Decide what you think happened. Now rewind it, turn the sound back on and watch it again. Did it change your mind?

I'm not going to say much about this, other than the following: thanks to Channel 4 for destoying any chance of a fair and just hearing for that officer. What you have done ensures that if he WAS guilty of anything, he'll worm his way out through being 'misrepresented by the press'. If he was innocent, he'll forever bear the weight of 'guilt by public declaration.'

I don't know the full facts of this case, so I choose not to comment on the case itself. I wish Channel 4 had shown the same common sense.

What I will say is that Mr Ijeeboude's quote of "Theres an offence in this country which is not on the statute books. Its driving whilst black" really, really pisses me off.

Where do we go from here?

2006-03-12T16:30:00.000Z

Interesting time on the blogging front recently. I, like the officer at Yor Nicked! have had an email from the bbc, as I would presume has every police blogger! For me, anonymity is key, so when I'm asked if I'm willing to be contacted I have to say that I don't live up to my pseudoname - I'm a mouse, not a man!

With all the doom and gloom settling about, I wanted to lighten the atmosphere a little and tell some of the funny stories that I've encountered. Of course, that would sort of blow the anonymity I spoke about out the water! I'm still going to post a story though, but this has never happened to me. Its a police 'urban legend' - every officer knows someone who knows someone who this has happened to. Whether it ever really has is another question... In the spirit of the urban legend though, I'll write it as the story of a friend.

Its a little known fact that a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher is a tool of many uses. One of its less documented uses is the fact that if you fire it into the face of a dog, the fear from the sound combined with the dog taking a breath means that you will have one instantly unconcious dog. Now, I'm not advocating animal cruelty, so please don't try this! The reason I mention it is simply for the story...

You see, my friend was a relatively new officer, who was off on one of his first drugs warrants. The house had some fairly specfic intelligence, which had resulted in the van of 8 officers being fully kitted out in riot kit, shields ready to go. The house they were attacking had two entrances - front and rear. The front was a UPVC door, bolted, and with a cage behind it. The rear seemed more vulnerable on paper - a wooden door, with seemingly no cage behind it. The plan was therefore formulated to enter through the back.
On arrival though, there was a problem. In the rear yard of the premises there was a huge Rottweiler, a particulary savage looking beast which gave the impression that anything entering the yard would quickly be eviscerated. Not wanting to slink off back to the police station, a plan was quickly formulated. On the riot van was a CO2 fire extinguisher, and one of the older officers suggested that this could be used to knock out the dog. He assured his fellow officers that he had seen an extinguisher used in the past, and they worked really well. One lucky officer could be armed with this, and be designated to take out the dog whilst everyone else ran for the door. With the dog out of play, the warrant could then be executed.
My friend, as the youngest in service was suitably volunteered to take the extinguisher. Young and keen, he didn't want to show any fear, so took it with relish. The rear gate was put in, and my mate was first through it. As the officers ran for the door, he ran towards the Rotty ushering a war cry. His fellow officers stared aghast at him as he raised the extinguisher to face the dog, and smashed it down onto the dogs head, promptly knocking it out cold.

Whilst everyone else couldn't help but pause, my mate turned to them and said "You're right, it does work well!"

Its what everybodys talking about

2006-03-06T12:23:00.000Z

Police blogs are dropping like flies. Internal investigation committees are being set up, and mass emails sent to police to warn them of the dangers of blogging. Thats what I've heard anyway...

On a serious note, I can understand why senior management don't like blogs. It is very, very rare that a blog expresses their agreement with an 'official policy', and sings the praises of what a good job the police are doing. On the whole, blogs are used to rant and rave about them. With these 'anti-policy' views being thrown about, its no wonder they are slightly perturbed. However, going around threatening blogs is not the best way to deal with this!

Have any of you ever wondered why we write blogs? Why we spend our own free time putting our thoughts down on virtual paper, for all to see? The simple reason is because no matter how much we talk at work, no one is listening. There are NO forums for ordinary police officers to stand up and say "Thats good on paper, but THIS is what happens on the street". We can't knock on your doors and say "We've tried this policy, and I know it makes you look good to the public, but its causing more problems for us, because of THIS". There really isn't any way for us to do this.

We can't speak to our supervisors about the problems that policy causes - well to be more accurate, we could but it won't help. Sergeants are just as annoyed at most of them as us, and could only pass them to the inspectors. Inspectors are too busy managing all of the teams and policies, and might pass them to the Superintendants. The Superintendants are 1) Too busy playing buzzword bingo at the latest meeting and 2) Too far removed from the ordinary officer on the street to understand the problems brought to them.

Blogging is our only way to vent our frustration, and yes, we do want the public to know how frustrated we are (and WHY we are frustrated) because all that senior management teams care about is the view they give to the public. I honestly believe that senior management teams don't actually care anymore about catching criminals or solving crimes, which is what every officer joined to do. They only care about getting that extra detection, making those statistics look a little better, putting one more high visibility jacket (doesn't matter if its an officer or a PCSO) out onto the street so that the public will see them.

I could be wrong. Perhaps I have badly misjudged you. Its possible - I've never met you. I've never seen you. I've only read your blanket emails, seen your name at the bottom of every new policy. If I am wrong, and you truly do care, give us a proper chance to speak.

Well golly!

2006-03-05T16:19:00.000Z

The Magistrates Blog has reported on this little gem from the news. A shopkeeper in Bromyard, Herefordshire who was displaying Gollywogs in his window had then removed by the police after a complaint from a member of the public that they were racist. They were later given back after the CPS advised NFA.

Initially when I heard this story on the news, I thought "Dammit, another case of political correctness taken way too far, which will only get the public more against us". However, I've been forced to reassess this viewpoint. Firstly, most of the comments on The Magistrates site seem to suggest that they do find the Gollywogs offensive, and were glad they were removed. No one was suggesting that the shopkeeper was delibrately seeking to offend, but hey, he wasn't charged - sensibly.

In the end, I have to concede that perhaps here, political correctness did have a part to play. A complaint was made, and sensible action taken - the offending articles removed and the shopkeeper advised. If a complaint hadn't been made, I'm sure no action would have been taken.

Its therefore unfortunate that because political correctness is often taken too far (still no arrests from those cartoon demonstrations?), its often always assumed that its a bad thing. Its not. Political correctness is needed, but its also needed to be sensibly applied.

Which is exactly why I've pointed out that in this circumstance, I agree with the action taken, but have also referred to the Gollywogs as "Gollywogs", and not "Gollys".

A brief goodbye

2006-02-26T18:15:00.000Z

Just a quick post to say goodbye to Brian's Brief Encounters. I've removed this site from my links, as he has retired from police orientated blogging, due to pressure from above. He never stated exactly what had been said to him, or by whom, but hinted that his supervision were aware of his blog and none too happy with it. Thanks for the past Brian, and hopefully one day you'll pick up where you left off. Until then, bye for now!

I'd also like to submit a missing person report for David Copperfield, owner/writer of The Coppers Blog. No new posts and no sign of life since February 9th, if I'd been sent to this job I'd be putting the door in. So, a general observations message for DC, please report any sightings!

Colour Blind

2006-02-22T16:13:00.000Z

Random Acts of Reality is a paramedics blog, in which he recently writes about being accused of not helping a patient who was clearly faking, just 'because shes black'.

Reynolds, I wouldn't worry about it. Whenever I arrest a white person, I regularly get "You don't bovver arresting them asians/blacks though do you, they can do whatever they want." Whenever I arrest a coloured person, its very often "Only because I'm black". I used to get extremely irritated by it, and often used to try and explain the mistake to my prisoner. I've given up on it now though. The only thing you can assure on my shift, is that if you choose to say anything such as the above, you lose any chance of respect from us.

I'm not racist, and no one on my shift is racist. I've never seen anyone on my station acting in a racist manner. However, some people tend to justify the fact that they've just been arrested for stabbing someone in front of us with the obvious and clear fact that if they had been white/black/green we wouldn't have bothered.

A long time to arm the law...

2006-02-15T14:30:00.000Z

This recent post from The Bow Street Runner shows another officer gunned down in the line of doing her duty. Doubtless it may get the 'Should we be armed' debate for frontline officers up and running again. For the argument, my stance on this is that I wouldn't actively lobby for a gun, but would take one without argument if they were offered, and would vote 'yes' on a referendum. I'd ask for a taser though, I honestly can't see why they aren't on our already overloaded kit belts.

In my force, the quickest I have ever heard a firearms unit be able to reach one of us without prior arrangement is 10 minutes. Thats a lot of time for someone to consider pulling a trigger or not. It's all very well asking us to 'risk-assess' everything carefully first, but you aren't always sent to the job with the clear information that the offender(s) may be armed. Sometimes you walk through the door, and thats the first time you see the gun. Sometimes you hear an alarm going off, get out of the car and thats the first time you see the gun. Sometimes its the last thing you'll see as well.

I doubt very much that this shooting will be the one that forces a change in British policing. No, I think that a good number more officers will need to be shot - hopefully not killed - before that happens.

CPS: Direct and to the point

2006-02-08T16:18:00.000Z

I was going to leave it at just the one post for today, but I visited The Thin Blue Line, read about his nasty CPS experiences, and had to write this post.

For the uninitiated, the CPS are the Crown Prosecution Service. If you don't know what they do, either take a guess, or have a look at their official site. One bonus thing that the CPS now do, that changed about 2 years ago is that with most cases, they decide if it goes to court or not. This decision used to be made by the custody sergeant, but because those bad sergeants were sending a lot of guilty people to the courts who had REALLY good excuses which meant they would get off at court, someone decided to save loads of money by putting making the CPS decide what went to court, so they only had to work on the really really easy to prove cases.

What this means to the officer is that if a CPS lawyer should be available to them in between the hours of 9 to 5 - or actually, 10 - 4 (they go home early/come in late) and allowing for a lunch break (about 2 hours is about right). This lawyer can then give you a face to face consultation about your prisoner, in order to say "Let them go, we can't prove it" or "Charge them, but first bail them for a month or two so you can do loads of extra paperwork, just in case they plead not guilty".

However, if you are dealing with a bad prisoner who decided to commit crimes outside office hours, you have to ring up a lawyer on the telephone (CPS direct) for the same advice. The system should then work in exactly the same way. However, after a recent conversation, I have decided that the people on the telephone have decided that they do not like working outside the above office hours, and so have decided to punish the police for arresting people at these unsociable hours. See below a story that happened a while ago:

Cast:
CPS Lawyer Bob - played by himself. The baddie. Boo!
ANM - A non mouse. Played by me. The goodie. Hurray!

(Phone rings)
CPS: CPS Direct, Bob speaking from the north. How can I help.
ANM: I need a pre charge decision on a prisoner for criminal damage please.
CPS: Ok, have you done an MG3? [form explaining the brief case]
ANM: Yes, would you like me to fax it?
CPS: Yes, but not yet. Have you got all statements?
ANM: Yes, no outstanding witnesses. I haven't done my arrest statement, but I didn't see anything, I merely arrested the offender so it will carry nothing of any real evidence. I'll obviously complete it for the court file.
CPS: Hmm. OK, you'll need to complete that before I can help you.
ANM: Seriously, it'll just be an arrest statement. Never knew the guy. He was pointed out to me by a witness who has been statemented. Arrested him. No reply after caution.
CPS: (Sighs) I'll need it before I give you advice. Let me just check everything else first. Any CCTV?
ANM: Yes. I've viewed it, copied it and produced some stills which I can also fax to you.
CPS: Ok ok. Do you have the offenders previous convictions?
ANM: Yes.
CPS: Is he cautionable?
ANM: No.
CPS: Does your custody sergeant think there are grounds to charge?
ANM: Yes.
CPS: Any reasons to deny the offender bail?
ANM: Yes. He's a persistent young offender, who has previous for offending on bail and failing to appear at court.
CPS: Ok. Have you done a ROTI?

CPS is basically asking me here whether I have sat down for around 2 hours with a tape of a half hour interview, typing all the important bits out so that he can see what was said

ANM: No I haven't - it was a no comment interview to every question.
CPS: Thats it. I'm fed up with police officers calling me when you haven't completed everything first. I'm not going any further. Call me back on this number WHEN you have everything correctly. Passes number
ANM: Erm... I haven't actually told you what the offence is yet...
CPS: (really ranting now) It doesn't matter! I'm not doing anything until you have completed your statement and your record of taped interview. Call me back when you've done your job.
ANM: But its a criminal damage where a known offender has been caught on very good quality CCTV, from two different angles and sources, writing on a phone box with a marker pen. Theres also two witnesses who know and observed the offender, the statement from BT complaining. The offender had the marker pen in his pocket when he was arrested. He's signed HIS name on the damn graffiti. He's gone 'No comment' simply because he always does, and hes already told me over a coffee that he'll be pleading guilty at court as its a 'nothing offence' which he won't get much for. I've put all this on the MG3. Are you seriously saying you still want a roti for this job?
CPS: Yes. I don’t care what the circumstances of the offence are, thats not the point.
ANM: Surely it should be the major point.
CPS: Its not. Call me when you've done it properly.

CPS hangs up the phone on me.

The story has a happy ending, as I called up again, managed to get a different lawyer who was much more cheerful, and happily authorised the charge and remand of my prisoner, with just a quick overnight file. He plead guilty, got some fine or community sentence (I never bothered checking), and I never heard from anyone about the case again.

Special Cases

2006-02-08T15:45:00.000Z

Firstly, apologies for the time since last posting - I've been on a bit of a break, but I'm back now.

I've been thinking about this post for a while, and apologise to Lennie Briscoe for not answering his query in one of my earlier comments before. I made a comment that basically said "Most policeman moan endlessly if crewed with a special." Lennie, being a special (and from reading his blog, a very competent one) quite rightly felt a little put out by the comment. I'll start off by mentioning that (from my humble experience) it is true. Most police officers I know don't like being paired with a special. It is not the case for all of us though. I don't mind being paired with a special at all, but I also quite like tutoring probationary constables, so maybe I am better suited to it.

So why don't most of us like working with specials? Well, the normal reasons given all tend to boil down to a lack of training. Specials (in my force definitely) are given very little training - I believe it is near to two weekends worth - before being handed CS, a baton, a warrant card and sent out into the world to try them all out. A new special is not going to be in any position at all to assist you in a matter unless you have explained to them what they need to do, and with the workload thrust upon response officers, many don't want to spend that extra bit of time breaking everything down and explaining things. Which is understandable.

So why don't those officers moan about being paired with probationers? They need everything 'explaining' just as much? True, but the thing about a probationer is that they will normally only be paired with experience tutors for a while, who won't mind training them on the job. After that, you know that the probationer is still going to come in the next day, and practice their new skills again, and again, until you don't need to re-teach them. Specials can have a long wait between shifts, meaning they simply don't get the same chances to practice and hone their skills.

Theres one further problem as well. Specials are not paid. They give up their own free time to do the job; they are keen. Very keen. Most of them will shout up for every job going - but they aren't the ones who will get the paperwork that goes with it. Not for them the long, extensive follow up enquiries. No, thats for their partner of the day.

As always, the above isn't true for everyone. There are specials I know who are actually better than some regular officers, but on the whole... I dunno. I can only speak from my own experience, and as its not fair to judge every special in England on the ones that come to my nick, I'll not draw any certain conclusions. My own personal opinion of specials is that I have no problem with them, I don't mind working with them, and they can be useful if used correctly, and not just sent straight out to wander the streets, on their first shift, with no supervision.

I have once spoken to a respected member of society (vague enough for you? ;) Hope so!) who thought that specials should quite simply not exist. Their argument was why allow members of the public with very little training access to a firearm (CS), a deadly weapon (baton), and put them into a situation where they could get attacked, insulted, shouted at and generally hurt, paying them nothing and expect them to act 100% professionally. The arguement that 'we need the extra numbers they provide us' didn't cut it with him, as his reply to that was "Hire more police then. If the specials really want to help the community, why not swear them in as those community officers. No police powers, non confrontational, but still helpful to society as a whole, and less risky for everyone."

The Law of Averages

2006-01-20T18:25:00.000Z

The Special Constables Blog starts off its latest post with a mention from the Conservative police reform. I'll reproduce the quotes here:

From BBC News:

Mr Cameron said there was little evidence that police performance had increased in line with increased resources, with each officer making less than 10 arrests on average every year

I read this a couple of times. And then read it again. Each officer making on average 10 arrests a year? Thats absolute nonsense I thought. I happen to know how many arrests I made a year, as our force has a handy piece of software which lets us keep count of arrests and other statistics. Its mainly used by the office based bean-counters to let them create pie charts, but I still use it to see how my stats are looking. My number of arrests is closer to 100 made a year, and I am by no means one of the police officers with the highest tallies at my station. In fact, I am more or less 'average' on our number of arrests.

So why do the conservatives make the claim that each officer makes an average of ten arrests a year? Simple. Because of all the office based monkeys, getting paid our wage for doing our job, whilst they make the aforementioned pie charts. They don't arrest anyone, but still get included in the count, and thanks to that, every other officers 'average arrests' drop. Think of it this way: I said I made 100 arrests a year. Between me and the Domestic Violence Officer at our nick, we both made an average of 50.

I find the comment that each officer makes only ten arrests a year insulting to say the least. I would like to ask whoever wrote this to try getting your statistic again, but only counting the response officers (who aren't permanently sick, or suspended for pathetic reasons), and then lets see the real quota.

You sure? E Sure?

2006-01-15T23:35:00.000Z

Many of the blogs on the sidebar have entered into the realms of insurance. Talking specifically, car insurance, and people with the distinct lack of it. I'm not sure of the official figure of the number of uninsured drivers on our roads, but based on my experience I'd put my estimate at 1 in 15 drivers on the roads is uninsured. As a driver who pays their money every year, this is one of the things that really irritates me.

Mostly its due to the way its dealt with by the courts. A few points on the licence (presuming they have one of course) and a fine thats about a tenth of the price it would have cost them to insure their car anyway. I personally feel that there should be a fine on top, equal to a reasonable quote from a car insurance company, paid into a government fund that can then be used to pay out to people hit by uninsured drivers. Thats far too sensible to happen though.

This is why I love the new legislation allowing us to seize unisured vehicles. If I catch you now, you get the court appearence for the pathetic fine as above, but you also lose your vehicle, with a price of around £100 to get it back, plus £20 or so daily. If you don't claim it after seven days, its crushed. Oh, and heres the best bit - YOU CAN'T GET IT BACK WITHOUT INSURING IT.

Finally, some legislation with some sense behind it.

So look out. If you are driving without insurance, I'll find you and take your car. No, I won't give you a lift to the station. No, I won't give you a lift home. Not only do I not care that you live 20 miles away, I see this as a bonus. Yes ok, I'll give you directions to the station. They won't be accurate though. :)

I was only joking officer, honest...

2006-01-10T16:25:00.000Z

I'd just like to make a quick post to say that when I said "In fact, thats probably it - the reason that no other police blog seems to have mentioned these power changes yet is because they haven't been told about them..." my tongue was firmly in cheek, so you can stop sending the emails confirming that you do know about it! ;)

One quick message also for a new blog, The Bow Street Runner, whose blog regarding SOCAP I did like in particular, as it was probably better training that provided by most forces!

So, to cap it all off...

2006-01-06T03:57:00.000Z

A new boy blogger, The Special Special spoke briefly on the subject of SOCAP (Serious Organised Crime and Police or something - I forget, I haven't had any training). I was actually surprised that he seems to be pretty much the first UK police based blog to mention it. From 1/1/2006, police powers have changed, as have a few other pegal things, such as swearing out warrants etc. The changes are:

Before 1/1/2006: Police could only arrest you for certain offences, deemed 'arrestable offences', and a couple of other offences for a couple of other reasons. Suffice to say, if you dropped some litter on the floor and refused to pick it up, you (probably) wouldn't find yourself down the station - you could still be summonsed to court, but there was no actual power of arrest*. If you did something naughty enough to be arrested, the police would have to tell you: that you were under arrest (even if it was obvious), what you were under arrest for, and caution you.

After 1/1/2006: Police now have the power to arrest for ANY offence, as long as they can justify the arrest under certain criteria. I won't bore you with the list of criteria, but basically, as with a lot of things in law, you can pretty much make one of the criteria fit if you want it to, so effectively police can now arrest for anything. If they do arrest you, they have to tell you that you are under arrest (even if its obvious), what you are under arrest for, WHY ITS NECESSARY TO ARREST YOU, and caution you.

Its a fairly large change. So then its amazing how many forces seemed to have completely failed to provide any training, let alone decent training to their troops before 1/1/2006! People will obviously start talking about the cost of providing this training, but these changes have been on the cards for a while, and there was plenty of money to print all of those shiny leaflets to hand out around Christmas to the revellers, trying to persuade them not to get to drunk. You know, all of the leaflets which just got chucked on the floor because they were too drunk to read them.

I had a handover package today in which some males had been arrested. Every arrest statement on the package showed an illegal arrest, as they had not been informed why the arrest was necessary. I forget the exact figures, but you can pretty much be guaranteed a four figure sum if you sucessfully challenge the police re an unlawful arrest. I just wish the people in charge of us would let the budgets be handed out by a trained monkey. It could honestly only be an improvement on the way things are now.

In fact, thats probably it - the reason that no other police blog seems to have mentioned these power changes yet is because they haven't been told about them...

* Yes, I am aware of Section 25, but I'm also aware of how much custody sergeants hated it...

We really shouldn't be doing this, but...

2006-01-03T22:32:00.000Z

Further to the previous post, heres another list of things that police do when they really shouldn't...

We should... carefully crime and complete about 5 pages of paperwork on every assault where someone in the street, whether drunk or not, approaches us with an injury and says "He hit me. I don't wanna do nuffink though."
We normally... make sure not to ask them their name, and then let the controllers know that they have 'refused all details' and 'don't want to talk to us'.
We really shouldn't but some do... tell the annoying drunk to "***k off if you don't want to get locked up".

We should... remain neutral, impartial, and not allow our judgement to be changed by the attitude or behaviour of anyone that we are speaking to.
We normally... arrest people who fail the attitude test.
We really shouldn't but some do... have to be held back by their colleagues after taking great offence to being called "a f***ing c***" for the third time in the night.

We should... risk assess every situation carefully before making any decision on how to proceed
We normally... charge in head first
We really shouldn't but some do... risk assess every situation carefully, acknowledge that the correct course of action is to back off, and charge in head first

We should... be happy that we are being supported by unpaid volunteer special constable, giving up their time to help us
We normally... moan hugely when paired with 'another sodding special'
We really shouldn't but some do... moan hugely about the ineptitude of the special whilst being little better

We should... be happy, proffessional and courteous to the person explaining how seriously the text message from her ex are affecting her
We normally... speak courteously whilst secrelty thinking 'oh for f***'s sake"
We really shouldn't but some do... say "oh for f***'k sake get over it and ignore him. Change your phone if its that irritating."

We should... be happy that from all of the government statistics, we are greatly reducing crime
We normally... accept that the statistics are easily aletered and fiddled to appear however you want them to appear
We really shouldn't but some do... enjoy fiddling them to appear as if you are the best copper ever, and then get promoted so you can decide what the next most important statistics are.

We should... be happy that our superiors are intelligent, sensible people, with the best interests... actually forget that one, its bollocks.

Anyone think of any more?

Normal Service is Resumed

2006-01-03T22:16:00.000Z

Hi. Apologies for the lack of a post over Christmas, but I didn't a) have a computer upon which to make an update and b) have the inclination to spend Christmas thinking about work! Normal service is resumed from now. :)

The Policeman's Blog spoke recently about shoplifters, and how they 'should' be dealt with in the perfect world, and how the are dealt with in reality. This is a common trait that probationers will see, and inevitably adopt the more time they spend doing police work. Training shows you 'best practice', but we all quickly fall into 'accepted practice'.

For example:

The Shoplifting example
We should... arrive at the store, get the security guard to repeat the allegation in the presence and hearing of the suspect, and then inform them that they are under arrest for theft, and give them the full caution. And oh yes, now its past 1/1/2006, WHY their arrest is necessary.
We normally... arrive, ask the store detective what happened as soon as we meet them, regardless of where they are, tell the offender that they are under arrest by saying "Put your hands out like this" while cuffing them.
We really shouldn't but some do... arrive, say "Can you drop the statement and CCTV off for me?" to the guard, slap some cuffs on the person that looks like the suspect, and walk them out chatting about what they stole, why they stole it, whether they had a nice day, how the drug treatment program is going etc...

We should... book the offender into custody, explain their rights re a solicitor and call one if requested, search their house before interview, get the statements, the CCTV, view the CCTV and then interview the suspect.
We normally... book them into custody, saying "You don't want a solicitor do you, I presume you want to go ahead right away? yeah thought so", clear it with the custody sergeant (whose sole goal in life is always to have a cell block free of those irritating prisoner people) to skip the search, and go straight to interview.
We really shouldn't but some do... book the offender into custody, persuading them out of a phone call to a solicitor, threatening them with remand if someone who 'doesn't know them' has to get hold of the case. Persuade them to put down NFA (no fixed abode) for the address to avoid the house search, and go straight for interview.

We should... perform the interview without speaking to the suspect about the case, and making no promises regarding cautions, releasing them on bail or remanding them.
We normally... perform the interview after promising them "you'll be out again within the hour, you won't get remanded as long as you're honest", and ensure that they are going to admit the offence prior to the interview
We really shouldn't but some do... promise the offender that if they 'cough it', they'll get bail, whilst knowing that as you persuaded them to put down "No fixed Abode" for the address, they are going to get remanded. And then when it does happen, you'll simply say "Sorry, its the sarge, there’s nothing I can do mate."

Second part of this post to follow shortly. :)

Merry Christmas and all that

2005-12-29T01:39:00.000Z

Just a quick note to say I'm on a Christmas break at the moment. Normal service will resume in the new year, or if I get a chance to get to a computer sometime, maybe sooner!

Have a good Christmas everyone!

Police, stop! Stop! Sto... oh, ok then

2005-12-18T12:05:00.000Z

The Magistrates Blog spoke recently about an incident in which a Detective Constable happened to look out of the window and spot four well known scrotes driving away from the police station in a Lexus. Assuming (correctly) that it had been stolen, he called for a uniformed officer to stop it, but unfortunately no one got there in time, and they got away.

Its a real shame that. If only a uniformed officer could have got there, then they could have used their blue lights to require the vehicle to stop before they had to pull up and watch the scrotes drive away, as the vast majority of officers are not allowed to pursue vehicles.

One quick point here - I agree in every way that only highly trained drivers, in the best, safest cars should be able to pursue, if their judgement deems it safe to do so. What I don't agree with is that every response officer is NOT a highly trained driver in the best of cars. Instead, money is felt to be better sent on shiny leaflets, big signs, and policy makers.

Uniformity

2005-12-13T01:14:00.000Z

The Policeman's Blog mentions that his force is considering issuing black shirts to all officers, but management are not sure as it may make the police less approachable. My force currently let only specfic jobs wear black polo shirts, and personally it irritates me, as I would much rather wear them as they are more comfortable, and a damn sight easier to wash (less ironing!) than white shirts and ties. They look just as smart due to the fact that pretty much everything is covered by the stab vest/utility harness/hi vis jackets anyway, and it would then also mean that the white shirt and tie could be kept as a dress uniform for court, and the much more practical polo shirt be used for when you are chasing people over fences or grappling with a vomit, piss and blood covered drunk. On a safety side, if someone grabs my shirt collar they could use it to strangle or at the very least move me around a bit - that wouldn't be the case with a polo shirt.

And what of the 'It makes police unapproachable' argument - seeing as that seems to be the ONLY reason against them? Lets take a look at it by breaking the public down into groups, and seeing if they would approach us if the uniform changed:

The Eldery: A group which I accept may possibly comment that we no longer look so smart as we used to. However, they say that anyway, due to the fact that after layering on all of the relevant kit, and then trying to stretch a high visibility jacket to fit over the top, we mostly look more like Mr Blobby after an adverse reaction to steroids than anything else.

The Business People: Unless they happen to be in the business of selling white shirts with extra buttons, I can't see any complaint from this area of society. And besides, the people who sell the black polo shirts will balance this out nicely. With regards to approachability, I can't see any change.

The Victims: As much as I try, I really can't imagine anyone who has been attacked/robbed running towards a policeman for help, and then coming to a screeching halt and changing their mind due to the fact that the officer is wearing a polo shirt rather than a shirt. "Well officer, I was going to report a robbery to you, but as you don't see fit to wear a tie, I'm not going to bother."

The Scrotes: These will undoubtably find us just as approachable as before: i.e. they will run when they spot us coming, due to the most recent crime they committed. If we were wearing black polo shirts, it might even mean we can sneak up a bit closer before they start running!

The Kids: Again, I can't see the new "Stranger Danger" campaign being amended to "If you're lost, seek out a relative, a teacher or a policeman - as long as he's wearing a tie."

And everyone else... I'm sure will happily be able to continue on with their lives, without losing a minutes sleep over the uniform change. Unlike the polce management, who I'm sure are paying thousands of pounds to many people to sit around arguing the decision out, only to decide that the best course of action can only be the one least liked by the greatest number of officers. Its a forumla they use, I'm sure of it.

And in other news...

2005-12-08T19:43:00.000Z

A quick aside here, but two things I found amusing in the paper recently whilst reading it back to front on a suicide watch...

Article 1: "The Crown Prosecution Service are to seek legal advice on whether they can take action against..." Who needs to know the rest of the story. That line said it all for me. :)

Article 2: "STOPPA COPPA SOCIETY" This article spoke about a small group in some part of the UK - I forget which - which had started up a society of people, and their only action was to approach a police officer and say "Officer, I just wanted to stop you to say that we really appreciate what you do. If it weren't for people like yourself, we would be in chaos. Please continue to follow your higher calling." I haven't got the paper with me at the moment, but I think that is pretty much word for word what it said. They went on to say that one WPC had burst into tears when they had spoken to her, and said how she was going to quit the job but now wouldn't.

Its therefore probably a sad state of affairs that if someone came up to me on the street and said that, I'd think they were severely taking the piss.

Stupid Fu... er... nny Questions

2005-12-06T05:25:00.000Z

Brian's Brief Encounters was speaking about the stupid questions that police get asked all the time. I refer to these questions as SFQ's (guess what that stands for yourself), and you can always spot one coming from a mile away. Its something to do with the walk.

So, heres my top ten list of SFQ's not to ask us. Please.

What time is the next bus to my house?

- Look I honestly don't even know how to use a bus timetable - I hate public transport!

Can you tell me the way to this place please?

- Yes I can. But that isn't an excuse for you stopping dead in the middle of the road, holding up everyone while I look it up in my A to Z (which incidentally are about £3 from any garage), so my answer is inevitably going to be "Sorry, I'm not from this area."

Officer, I reported [a crime] to you yesterday. Whats happening with it?

- See posts below on why never to ask this one.

What are they doing here then? (indicating nearby roadworks)

- Digging?

Is your vest bulletproof?

- Well, I've not been hit by one yet.

Can you tell them bouncers to let me back in?

- No. For one thing, they are too busy placing side bets amongst themselves as to how long it will take you to annoy me enough to get arrested.

Why can't you just mind your own f***ing business?

- There are many answers to this, but the usual reason would be because you are really too stupid to be allowed free will, and the only reason that I am involved in your business is due to the error of allowing it to you.

Did you get bullied at school?

- Thats a new one. I'd laugh, but we aren't allowed to whilst on duty - force orders.

Are you only stopping me because I'm black/white/wearing a hoodie/cap?

- No. Actually its because you stink of cannabis, smelt similar to something that is generally found near the drain of a brewery, and are driving a car with no licence, insurance or mot.

What the f*** are you going to do about it you p****?

- I'll tell you in the morning when you've sobered up enough for me to issue you with the fixed penalty ticket.

Any one think of any I missed?

-- Just had another quick one to add that I can't believe I left out:

Why have I been arrested?

- Always repeated, and I mean repeated, no realy, repeated and repeated and repeated again (get the idea yet) with any drunk prisoner. I have a personal rule to myself that I will only tell them the first six times.

Anti Society

2005-11-30T15:25:00.000Z

The Policeman's Blog is talking about ASBO's at the moment, and in particular the case of one lad called Zak.

A few people have commented against ASBO's - one of the comments in particular has been the complaint that "it criminalizes behaviour that is actually against the law." Yes, it does. That's exactly what its for. ASBO's aren't used to tackle criminals - we tend to try and use the law for them. ASBO's are for the people, mostly (stereotyping) 'yobs in hoodies' (/stereotyping) who hang around, in the street drinking, and generally making other peoples lives in the street hell. How do they make it hell? Well, heres the problem. When the victims explain to people what is happening, it can easily sound like you are making a big deal out of it. They are dropping empty beer cans into your garden? Vomiting in the street? They are hanging around in large groups, being noisy and threatening? What do you mean you are frightened to go outside? Why? They are only kids.

Despite the 'petty' nature of the problems that ASBOs seem to solve, they are huge if you are actually living there. Imagine, and I don't care what age you are, that every afternoon, a group of approximately 10 youths came outside your house, sat on your car, and drank, swore and fought amongst each other. Every afternoon. When you need to leave to move your car, they find it incredibly amusing to intimidate you. Squaring up to you, swearing at you, the whole group laughing at you, refusing to get off the car. Inevitably, the householder who strikes out at them and pushes them off the car gets assaulted by the group, because their brains now think "its self defence, he started it". The person who ignores it and retreats back into the house is the subject of huge amusement to the group.

The police arrive and are called. "They are all under 18 and drinking in the street." Technically, and not a lot of people realise this, not illegal. With whats been said above, not a lot to arrest them on. Inevitably, they'll be moved on, laughing about it, and repeat the process elsewhere, to someone else. ASBO's are our chance of stopping this before it inevitably moves on into the criminal offences in which someone says "It was one of them group of 15 that did it." Great! Which one? "Dunno, but definitely one of them. Do something about it."

Crimefighters

2005-11-28T13:00:00.000Z

The Policemans Blog is talking about shifts, and how the work of policing our towns and cities appears to be spread unfairly across the many different departments available to the modern officer.

A response officer is the person that will come out to you if you dial 999, and are deemed worthy of seeing an officer. They are also the people who will most likely come and talk to you if you come to the police station with your problem. They'll talk to you, they'll fill in loads of nice friendly forms, probably helpfully explaining to you at the time that they will be filling in a XG20, XG20.1, MG11, MG6F, and a JK101(a). If you're REALLY lucky they'll take the time to explain what the purpose of each of the, apparently identical, forms are. Thats if they even know of course. Once you've finished talking to them, they'll take all of their forms away, and send them away to be copied again by someone else. Then, more likely than not, they will cross their fingers and hope that they never see your forms again, and hope that they get given to someone else to investigate.

This time though, they are unlucky, and they come back to the same officer for further investigation. No matter, the officer is a responsible, capable police officer, and the only reason that he didn't want your report is that he already has 24 others that he is trying to investigate anyway. He's finally got 10 minutes free time now, so he's going to do a quick enquiry - if he can arrest someone and therefore tie himself up in this 10 minute window, he'll probably get the whole report cleared once he's filled in form gh100 through 500, and the MG series of course. Its not going to be your investigation dealt with now though - thats now 25th on the list, so please don't keep ringing asking how its going. Its only painful to both of us to tell you how little we've been able to do.

This is the job of a response officer. Attend, deal, take details, submit forms and repeat. Try to deal with own forms whereever possible. The new probationer does not lose all hope though, as fortunately, there are countless other departments in the station which can assist. We have Domestic Violence Units, Hate Crime Units, Community Safety Units, Drug Advisory units, Tactical Professional Strategic Units. So, the new probationer takes their domestic violence offence upstairs to the DVU. They have a look at it.

"Yes, thats definitely domestic violence. Heres what you have to do..."
Ten minutes later the probationer says "Oh right... sorry, I thought you might want to investigate this, as you have had a lot more training, know the names and addresses of the people involved, have spoken to them before, know everything to do and... isn't that what you do?... Its not? Oh. Ok. Well, doesn't matter, I am quite happy anyway, as a lot of what you just said I was going to do anyway - at least I got something right!"
"In that case, you'd better do this as well..." (and this is exactly the reason why I refer to the officer here as a probationer - you only make the mistake of delibrately visiting the offices of these teams once.)

The same sort of reply comes from the other teams. You see, the secret is that they are not set up to deal with the problems for which they are named, they are simply there to identify those problems to us, just in case we'd missed them, and direct us in what we should now do. Oh well, at least it makes the sergeant's job easier. Directing us in what to do used to be his/her responsibility, at least now s/he can just say "Go and see the XXX Unit", and it gives him/her more time to check all of our forms and copy them out twice.

How to fight crime: Lesson 101

2005-11-26T04:33:00.000Z

Brian's Brief Encounters is currently talking about the problems in putting "Bobbys on the beat". Through the many, many, statistically biased public surveys that the government and police forces conduct across the country, they have found that the thing that the public most want is "More bobbys on the beat". Unfortunately, the public are wrong. Thats not what you want - honest.

Let me explain it - you want less crime, right? Ok, so let me give you the following scenario: I'm Billy the Burglar/Car Thief/Pick Pocket/Robber. I'm going out to burgle/steal. Its what I do. If I go onto one street where I see a policeman, I'm going to take the surprising decision to ply my trade elsewhere, where I can't see a policeman. Then I'm going to run away, knowing that there is at least one less policeman in the area that isn't going to catch me. Mr Policeman hasn't stopped me earning my wage, he has just caused me the slight inconveinence of having to drive to an area further away. No matter, I'll just steal a tiny bit more to cover the petrol.

High visibility policing does not catch criminals - not even they are stupid enough to commit crime right in front of us - well not all of them anyway. All it does is temporarily stop the problem, or move it elsewhere onto a different area. More 'bobbys on the beat' would only be effective if you could put a policeman onto every street in the country, 24 hours of the day, which just isn't feasible.

Personally, I would rather put all of the resources into catching criminals rather than preventing crime. You can't prevent crime, you can only pause it and move it, but when you catch a criminal you stop them for a short time at least, depending on the stance of the courts towards them. Give me a plain clothes operation over "Hi-vising" any day. Unfortunately, the stance of most police forces seems to be "If we can force this problem away onto someone elses area, we don't have to worry about it anymore.".

Whats it all about?

2005-11-26T04:21:00.000Z

Hi. First a little bit about myself. I'm a serving police officer, who began reading blogs when one of my colleagues (my sergeant at the time actually) pointed me towards The Policemans Blog. I read it and was hooked, and from it found a number of other blogs that I now read regularly. Reading all of the stories made me want to post some of my own... but for the time being at least, I'm not going to be doing that too much! The reason for this is that I would like to be careful - as I said, it was a sergeant who told me about blogs, and I know that my colleagues and supervisors could read this, and I don't want to give away too many clues about my identity! I would like to remain a-non-y-mouse for the time being at least. :)

So, I found myself thinking, what can I write about instead? Well, I decided, I like to put across my point of view on the subject matter of the day, and like to hear of other people's points of view. Therefore, what this blog will mostly be doing is talking about the other five blogs that I read, the points they are discussing, and putting my side of the subject across. I welcome your comments, especially if they disagree with my own, because I like a good debate, and would like to convert you to my own viewpoint, which is, of course, the correct one. ;)

Lastly, if you have a blog which you think you would like to tell me about, let me know. I'll read it. If I like it, I'll link to it, and I'll start talking about it in this blog also.

I hope you enjoy this blog as much as I hope I enjoy writing it.

The First Post

2005-11-26T03:51:00.000Z

Welcome to my blog. More about it in a bit, let me just set things up in here. :)