JCDM Verdict?

BBC: London's Metropolitan police force has been found guilty of endangering the public over the fatal shooting of a man officers mistook for a suicide bomber. As expected, the media is teaming with viewpoint and comment, good and bad about today's verdict. The court found the force guilty of breaking health and safety laws when officers pursued Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes and shot him seven times. It was fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs over the 22 July 2005 shooting. Reaction to the verdict by various prominent individuals was divided over the implications for the force. Public opinion in the BBC Have Your Say forum was also divided.

The BBC (like other media sources), have produced their own 'in depth' Death of Jean Charles de Menezes assessment of what happened and why (in their opinion). One of those respondents in the BBC forum said; "It's all very well to pontificate in hindsight--rather different to have to make decisions" and that is one of the major factors in this tragic episode.

Does anyone ever stop to consider the feelings and emotions of those police officers who pulled the triggers. Imagine for one moment being in that position yourself, a split second between his (JCDM) death and yours, not to mention countless others. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, knowing that whatever you do your whole life will be ripped apart for months or years after, whilst every official (and often none official) enquiry takes place. Considered to be guilty in the public eye until proven innocent, unlike the basic rights of every other member of society.

Thankfully the court has found that non of those officers physically involved acted incorrectly, despite poor briefings and the failings of their commanders! No doubt these will be aired again in the forthcoming IPCC report however, now the dust of the media circus and public opinion is starting to settle, the most important thing is to make sure the lessons are learnt and failures are not repeated.

Hoisted by our own petard

The ‘father’ of modern day policing in the UK Sir Robert Peel, engineered the creation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the same decade the term ‘sociology’ was coined. Auguste Comte in 1838 believed ‘all human life had passed through the same distinct historical stages and that, if one could grasp this progress, one could prescribe the remedies for social ills’. It is therefore bizarre for anyone who has a basic understanding of ‘sociology’ to comprehend why, most of today’s pundits and commentators would have us believe that; meltdown of our society is due to an increase in crime and lawlessness. This is only the consequence, not a tangible root cause of the outcome.

Social and moral breakdown in our society is solely due to our own liberalism. The simple acceptance of what was once unpalatable as now being the norm. As a society we have lowered our standards and, it has become almost unacceptable to try and maintain them. Our children are taught to challenge whatever they are told, if people fail to reach a particular standard for any roll in life, we reduce it so as not to exclude them.

Our welfare state appears to reward those who do nothing to contribute to it and, various ‘experts’ also suggest changes to the age of criminal responsibility for kids will reduce crime. It will reduce the statistics we record, but won’t actually reduce the crime. All these factors are evidence of our societies desire to dumb down standards.

Why does it appear so wrong to reward achievement and why do we undervalue honesty, integrity and ethical standards? Why can’t it be ok to aspire to better things, whilst still accepting your destiny is governed by your own efforts? Our society and humanity as a whole do not owe us a living we owe them! The continued reduction in our ‘standards’ only serves to exacerbate the overall situation.

Recently Ann Widdecombe MP adopted the approach of making people feel uncomfortable about their own personal situation; she made them feel embarrassed about what they accept as normal. In short, Ann provided a form of social peer pressure, the only methodology that will actually reverse the trends in our society. Unless we are happy for our society to plummet to the lowest levels of deprivation, we all need to utilise these ‘tools’.

If we have no aspirations for a safe and civilised society we will be hoisted by our own petard.

Tickets Please...

The Daily Mail: 'Police to be issued with traffic warden-style ticket machines'. Here we go, another piece of bloody kit for the bobby to carry! Now the I will admit the PND is a useful tool in the justice armoury but not, to the exclusion of process and arrest, which is now often the case! We all know that 'tickets' are only being used epees the 'bean counters', they have little to do with the actual process of administering justice. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London have said; 'the Government have only met its targets (crime reduction/detection) by "significantly increasing the number of sanctions that do not formally go to court"!

Now they are taking the piss!

I have it on good authority (from a colleague in the west of the county) that officers have received an updated process instruction... Basically any officer who finds someone urinating in the street should adopt the 'new' policing method and proceed via issue of a PND for Sec. 5 Public Order and under no circumstances, report for summons (the 'old' way). But why has NYP just thought of adopting this methodology?

In 2005 both England and Scotland were receiving 'official' guidance on the topic. No prosecution for street urinating: Said the Scottish Law Society Journal in 2005 when the Lord Advocate instructed that 'no police reports to procurator fiscal unless other offence committed'. This was done with a view to 'freeing up police resources'. And also in 2005 The Guardian reported on the Government instructions that; 'offenders can be prosecuted under public order legislation, and that on-the-spot fines of £80 can be served under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Police could even use an 1847 law against indecent exposure'.

Now apart from the problem of binge drinking and week bladders, one of the fundamental causes of any increase in this anti social act, has been the lack of public toilets in our towns. However, why should it be OK to pee freely in Scotland but not in England?

Perhaps our colleagues over the border are not subject to the rigid target chasing mentality that we are in the south? What worries me is that, not with standing the unsocial act itself, we're now looking to criminalise yet another section of the community, solely to boost crime detection figures. It really is madness, how are we ever going to get back to the 'policing by consent' ethic when we are consistently distanced from those we police by such petty number chasing!

Woman fined £500 for hoax calls to emergency services

A Lonely woman who bombarded the 999 service because she wanted someone to talk to has been condemned for putting lives at risk... And rightly so! A colleague in the control room pointed out that she was often so hammered you couldn't even tell what she was saying. The comment in the media about an 'alcohol problem' was obviously an understatement! My friend also said the majority of 999 calls they receive are not emergencies, many people use the emergency number like a Freephone NYP.

A typical conversation goes something like;

NYP: Police Emergency

Call: It ain't an emergency right, it's like I ain't got no credit on me mobi

NYP: You should ring 0845 60 60 247

Call: Like I just said, I ain't got no credit mate! You effing fick or summat?

British Telecom estimate that around 40% of all 999 calls are malicious - 2,700 of them are made in the North-East every year. Yep Mr Brown, the idea about raising the driving age is great and whilst your on, introduce financial and educational testing of our wonderful underclass chavs before they are authorised to operate a mobile telephone... I was going to say 'purchase' but it's probably nicked any way!

HMP Ritz - Prison or Hotel?

Apparently, daily cell checks are to be scrapped under confidential plans being drawn up by the Prison Service to save money, according to various newspapers.... Now I'm not one to suggest we should treat people inhumanly or abuse basic human rights, if we did that would make our society no better than criminals. No what I and many others cry out for is make prison a proper punishment, yes include rehabilitation by way of education etc. but make it a bloody punishment! During all my many years of police service I can site several examples of 'customers' who habitually got themselves convicted of crime just to go to prison, why? Better facilities than home, regular supply of drugs, no living or personal expenditure... A free hotel room for many, only disadvantage being you can't go out for a walk... Even that is also available at many of our institutions now. It makes you wonder if incarceration as a 'deterrent' will ever have the desired effect any more?

14 men on the run from immigration detention centre

The 14 men still on the run from an immigration detention centre are all convicted criminals, the Home Office has said.... Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Only in Britain! Why is it we are so hell bent on providing accommodation, care and understanding to those who have no compunction about abuse of our society and it's law abiding citizens? Even when we decide that enough is enough, and we decide to expel those who have done us wrong, we can't even get that right! No wonder so many waifs, strays and crooks head for good old soft hearted shores of Blighty!

Tesco Jails

What are things coming to? Sgt. Blaketon would have a thing or two to say about this... The Government is considering plans for cells in supermarkets and at major sporting stadiums to deal with shoplifters and football hooligans.... Full Story
Here we have another half baked idea from our politicians. As the article points out, the potential impact of any perceived lowering of the standards of custodial care is a key issue. The 'designated police station' under PACE (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act) is an important safeguard for the suspect/detainee. A custody suite staffed by fully trained and experienced staff, not some security contracter at the lowest cost and, who will cary the responsibility for any injury or death in custody? Will detainees earn Club Card Points???

Enquiry singles out Senior Officer

'The country's most senior anti-terrorist officer will be heavily criticised in an official report published tomorrow into the events surrounding the killing of an innocent Brazilian man in south London', according to the Guardian....

Yes the shooting was an unfortunate accident but spare a thought for the poor officers involved in the incident. Officers who had to make split second decisions for the safety of the public and themselves and, in that type of situation you will always be critisised, no matter what you do. The findings of the two-year IPCC investigation into who in the Metropolitan police knew what and when has not gone so well and caused disquiet at Scotland Yard.

For once it appears that the senior management are receiving the flack instead of it falling off sloping shoulders down to the lowest possible level...

See full article at Police Oracle