This Station (like many others) is now Closed

Like many areas of traditional policing (as we once knew it in the UK), this station has now closed down.

The last encumbent, one of the many 'Edmund Davies' babies, has now completed his thirty years, has no interest in continuing until the age of 55yrs and has shuffled off into blissfull retirement...

Do I miss it? Only a little bit but what saddens me the most is; the police service that once had worldwide respect is now declining towards the point of no return and, the people who suffer the most are the communities we once proudly served.

Thanks for nothing Mr Politician!!!

Do we have Safer Neighbourhoods?

Well that's it... Christmas & New Year over with for another 12 months and back to some sort of normality... Maybe, but should we carry on accepting what we now call normality? Is it normal to have kids killing each other with knives and guns? Is it normal for our town centre streets to be controlled by groups of foul mouthed drunken idiots? It's certainly not a level of normality I am proud of... Are you?

Consistently our government, our local authorities and our police force leaders tell us that; the adoption and implementation of a Safer Neighbourhood Strategy will make all the difference but what is Neighbourhood Policing?

According to Reform, an independent, non-party think tank; all neighbourhood policing models have two common features - they involve a return to beat policing which focuses on preventing crime rather than reacting to it, and they involve increases in on-the-street manpower, through recruitment and effective redeployment. The models most often cited are those systems which operate in Chicago, New York and San Diego USA. So why should the American system work here? But where are the similarities between their system of policing and ours?

Much of our government's plan for reforming the police is broadly based on the Chicago strategy started in 1993 where elements combine basic policing with problem-solving that includes tackling antisocial behaviour. However much of the Safer Neighbourhood Strategy thinking (as actually applied in the UK) is little more than media hype. And in many ways is doing the exact opposite to what was initially intended.

In the gun toting USA they have always policed by force not by consent (as in the UK) and here's the rub... The USA never had any form of community policing like ours, the one that was already in place. But as our society got more like the American one, a society which promotes the rights and desires of the individual as opposed to the community, we ran headlong into the cesspit of self is everything and sod anyone else!

There is no doubt in my mind that policing the 21st century has different demands than those placed upon the policing of Sir Robert Peel however, I am also convinced his methodology and principles still apply. This is born out in the strategy and thought process behind much of the 'modern' thinking however, a 'one size fits all' application is nonsensical! Yes, many of our more urban and metropolitan areas may have become similar to areas in the USA but much of our Country is still as it was many years ago. The predominent attitudes of much of our society may have changed but the communities in which that society lives has not.

The current race to embed Safer Neighbourhood policing in every area of the UK is actually doing the opposite to what was originally intended. Many forces were already stretched to capacity dealing with the day to day demand of the modern police service, without hiving off upwards of 45% of resources to build Safer Neighbourhood units. Before any of this methodology can be succesfully applied there is actually a need to change, modernise and update many other aspects of police work and processes. Modernising and reform doesn't just happen by applying a fancy title and selling it to the media!

• Also see Confident Policing in Middlesbrough (.pdf) the Ray Mallon methodology.

Mr Brown you need us...

Police Officers are furious that CSOs are to get the full pay rise, including back pay that has been denied to fully sworn officers and rightly so!

But police officers are not the only ones who question the actual worth of the CSO. James O'Brien of Friction TV suggests we should actually Get Rid of Community Support Officers! There are many who would agree however, I believe that perhaps they do actually have a role in modern policing but let's be open and honest about what that function actually is! The government is doing nothing short of lying to the public in an attempt to disguise their hidden agenda. An agenda which promotes law and order on one hand, crows about how well they are addressing the issues, boasts about how many 'extra' officers are now available then proceeds to try and provide policing services on the cheap.

I, like many of my colleagues could bang on about this subject indefinitely, (actually many of us do) however, the whole crux of the issue is all about trust, about openness and honesty and a belief in our politicians and what they say. It would b e stupid to ever believe that we will all have the same political beliefs but it would be nice to actually trust what the politicians are saying... Unfortunately this has to be a pipe dream!

When there is some clarity about the actual role and responsibility of the CSO, a complete standardisation of uniform, training and powers right across the country and a total step back from trying to pull the wool over the public eyes, then I might change my belief in their actual worth. Until then I find it increasingly hard to actually see the 'value' they currently bring to the policing process.

What we actually have here is a disguised attempt by our government to produce a two tier policing service. One that has a visible (almost powerless) presence on the streets and another, smaller unit that are armed to the teeth with all manner of powers and equipment. A force that is called upon to quell and squash the public when they fail to comply with government instructions. Is this what we want as a nation? Is this not approaching a police state methodology? Have we not lost sight of the 'Policing by Consent' ideal? The public must decide...

With the current methodology applied by this government, their need for the police is actually increasing. It would be woefully unwise therefore to alienate them if the government wishes to continue along their current tack!

Working in Partnership???

Have you noticed how every bit of paper you pick up in the office these days has some fancy buzz word logo about 'Partnerships'. Police Bosses continually bang on about 'Working in Partnership', especially when a media opportunity arises and, how every local newspaper or the evening regional TV news includes a headline on the same topic.

Ashfordly Bugle: Local Residents Up In Arms... "we have made great strides in dealing with the issues" said Col. Blympton-Smythe TD JP, leader of the local council... "our partnership approach is making a great difference to the quality of life within our communities" blah blah blah! So why, when it really comes down to it, are the cops often the only 'partners' pulling their weight?

Local News: Council wardens in York will patrol on an evening to catch out revellers dropping litter on the streets. It is part of a campaign which focuses on stamping out fast food rubbish on the city's streets. York Council in partnership with Keep Britain Tidy will spearhead the message in the run-up to Christmas.

Alf Says: What's the betting the Council Wardens end up calling the police when they identify a litter dropping drunken oik. The youth will have just dumped his kebab wrapper on the street, clearly observed by the wardens but they can't approach him "due to Health & Safety guidelines" ! But the police are expected to make a 20 mile round trip, leaving the job they were already attending to protect the warden and deal with the offence.

New Drugs Policy: North Yorkshire Police will no longer be called to reports of a drug overdose - in an attempt to save more lives. The new approach has been introduced to make sure people who need help call medical services without fearing a criminal investigation.

Alf Says: Previously the ambulance service would call the police to most drug related incidents. Despite the new policy, it would appear they still are as Ambulance crews 'stand off' outside the address awaiting police attendance.

Uncommitted 'Partners':

• Social Services - Consistently expect the police to 'hold the fort' out of office hours and at weekends due to 'limited staffing'. Expect the police to provide a 'duty of care' to people they have 'misplaced' when they were in their care.
• Environmental Health - Provide absolutely no out of hours services in relation to noise complaints.
• Highways Depts - Have answer machines that instruct the public to contact the police.
• Health Service - Fail to provide sufficient resources for patients with mental health issues, expecting the police to provide 'places of safety'.
• HM Coroners - No out of hours service do deal with those 'administrative' sudden deaths that are due to natural causes.

These are but a few examples of those agencies that, despite a 24hr responsibility, often only provide a service during office hours. The longer they are able to get away with it, especially during the current climate of budgetary constraint, the longer it will continue. The police service is no longer able to provide a 24/7 fix everything service, even if we would like to. We have neither the resources, the money or the time. At the end of the day, building better communities is all about 'WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP' isn't it?

We're never likely to manage it whilst the police are carrying shirkers!

Government CSO claim is false...

Half of Britons do not feel safer with police community support officers (PCSOs) patrolling the streets, according to a new poll. This topic also got an airing recently in the Tonight with Trevor McDonald programs about 'The Thin Blue Line'. Unsurprisingly, commenting on the poll, a Home Office spokeswoman trotted out the usual clap trap about CSOs being "an invaluable addition to policing".

I have no desire to rubbish the good men and women who are trying to put something back into our society and their communities however, for invaluable read 'poorly trained cheaper substitute'. Even the CSO's are often being conned by their employer and, in many cases put in physical danger.

The HO spokeswoman continued; "They are a complement to, not a replacement for, sworn police officers." With that point most educated people would agree however, they are actually being used to deceive the public, to con us into believing the uniforms we see on the streets are in fact police officers.

Wake up madam Home Secretary, our society in general has more intelligence than you give it credit for. Those that don't see the true picture don't care and, their behaviour is certainly not influenced by pretend cops in pretend uniforms. Politicians have to understand this shallow charade won't sucker the public for much longer! Despite the beliefs of the ill informed self important Police Minister.

Police Communications???

There seams to be more and more problems these days with members actually getting a timely response from the police. Police stations that are never open, the response/neighbourhood resource availability issues and centralised call centres, all come in for regular criticism by the public an in the media. Apparently the following is supposedly a true story (supplied by one of my readers in the south) and, after having done the rounds within police email systems, this one has mysteriously leaked into the public domain? I suspect the relevant force complaints and professional standards department, 'in partnership' with their IS Department, are currently working at a frenzied pace to electronically and robustly route out the culprit with a view to severe action after breach of the force email/Internet policy!

Dear Sir / Madam

Automated telephone answering service

Having spent the past twenty minutes waiting for someone at Leith police station to pick up a telephone I have decided to abandon the idea and try e-mailing you instead. Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass this message on to your colleagues in Leith by means of smoke signal, carrier pigeon or ouija board.

As I'm writing this e-mail there are eleven failed medical experiments (I think you call them youths) in West Cromwell Street which is just off Commercial Street in Leith. Six of them seem happy enough to play a game which involves kicking a football against an iron gate with the force of a meteorite. This causes an earth shattering CLANG! which rings throughout the entire building. This game is now in it's third week and as I am unsure how the scoring system works, I have no idea if it will end any time soon.

The remaining five walking abortions are happily rummaging through several bags of rubbish and items of furniture that someone has so thoughtfully dumped beside the wheelie bins. One of them has found a saw and is setting about a discarded chair like a beaver on speed. I fear that it's only a matter of time before they turn their limited attention to the bottle of calor gas that is lying on its side between the two bins. If they could be relied on to only blow their own arms and legs off then I would happily leave them to it. I would even go so far as to lend them the matches. Unfortunately they are far more likely to blow up half the street with them and I've just finished decorating the kitchen.

What I suggest is this - after replying to this e-mail with worthless assurances that the matter is being looked into and will be dealt with, why not leave it until the one night of the year (probably bath night) when there are no mutants around then drive up the street in a panda car before doing a three point turn and disappearing again. This will of course serve no other purpose than to remind us what policemen actually look like.

I trust that when I take a claw hammer to the skull of one of these throwbacks you'll do me the same courtesy of giving me a four month head start before coming to arrest me.

I remain sir, your obedient servant
?????????
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr ??????,

I have read your e-mail and understand your frustration at the problems caused by youths playing in the area, and the problems you have encountered in trying to contact the police.

As the Community Beat Officer for your street I would like to extend an offer of discussing the matter fully with you.

Should you wish to discuss the matter, please provide contact details (address / telephone number) and when may be suitable.

Regards

PC ???
?????????????
Community Beat Officer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear PC ?????

First of all I would like to thank you for the speedy response to my original e-mail. 16 hours and 38 minutes must be a personal record for Leith police station and rest assured that I will forward these details to Norris McWhirter for inclusion in his next book.

Secondly I was delighted to hear that our street has it's own Community Beat Officer. May I be the first to congratulate you on your covert skills. In the five or so years I have lived in West Cromwell Street, I have never seen you. Do you hide up a tree or have you gone deep undercover and infiltrated the gang itself? Are you the one with the acne and the moustache on his forehead or the one with a chin like a wash hand basin? It's surely only a matter of time before you are headhunted by MI5.

Whilst I realise that there may be far more serious crimes taking place in Leith - such as smoking in a public place or being Muslim without due care and attention - is it too much to ask for a policeman to explain (using words of no more than two syllables at a time) to these tw*ts that they might want to play their strange football game elsewhere? The pitch behind the Citadel or the one at DKs are both within spitting distance as is the bottom of the Albert Dock.

Should you wish to discuss these matters further you should feel free to contact me on ??? ????. If after 25 minutes I have still failed to answer, I'll buy you a large one in the Compass Bar.

Regards
???????

'Bobbies Are Not Natural Bureaucrats'

Police Oracle: Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has outlined how criminal justice processes could be changed to reduce excessive bureaucracy in policing...

Really? A large proportion of our 'bureaucratic process' actually originates from our leaders! It's my intention to comment further however for now I'll just reproduce it in full for those who haven't seen or heard it yet (see below):

'Actually, Bobbies Are Not Natural Bureaucrats'

When I wrote this speech last week, I was concerned that I might be accused of entering the political fray at the start of a General Election. However, even had there been an election, I thought I was going to be able to say this morning what I had planned because if there is one thing that all the political parties are united around about policing, it is to try to cut down on bureaucracy. I want to cut down on bureaucracy as well.

However, I think that some politicians and media commentators think there is so much bureaucracy because police like it, feel comfortable with it, or are lost without it. That is not the case at all. History shows us that because the service that I joined, over thirty years ago, it was a very unbureacratic place. I would like it to get back there.

Were we to return to the time I joined, to the time of "Life on Mars", we would, of course, be struck by the casual racism and sexism which made all the headlines about that programme: what would really strike us much more, however, would be the ability of the police to deal quickly with matters of criminal justice.

On bureaucracy in the police as a whole - to deal with that just for a moment - discussion about cutting down on the number of forms misses the point. Of course, we need lots of different forms for different purposes. The need is to get antiquated IT systems to transfer data, so it is only keyed in once. Some of those IT systems are inside the police service, some of them connect to other services. It is a long term enterprise and, certainly in the Met, much progress is being made. Until that progress is complete, however, police officers and police staff will have to key in
that information.

That is not the point of this brief address, however, because not all bureaucracy is unnecessary. Most of the information being input by police needs to be recorded, even if preferably only once. In the case of the Criminal Justice system, however, uniquely, whole swathes of information are
recorded which do not need to be. Let us assume for a moment that every criminal case is an animal. As it stands, the law treats them as if they are all the same animal and a very large and very dangerous animal at that. So, irrespective of whether the case is a mad bull elephant or a small pesky chicken, the law treats it just the same.

This is the consequence of the Criminal Justice reforms introduced by the 1977 Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. This, in turn, was carried out after a series of scandals, most notably the conviction of three youths for the murder of Maxwell Confait in 1972, convictions that were found to be palpably unsafe because they were based on confessions made after long
periods of detention, accompanied by allegations of brutality. Many other cases followed, including, of course, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. But in the reforms that followed, aimed at eradicating brutality, limiting periods of detention and introducing access to legal advice, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act treated all cases the same. This was followed by the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act known as CPIA, which regulated the rules of disclosure - and treated all cases the same. This has been followed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which has regulated surveillance and other aspects of covert policing - treating all cases the same. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 then took away from the police their powers to charge, in all but the most trivial cases.

What this means is that, while I could, as a young constable, make three arrests for entirely unconnected offences in a single tour of duty and process them without overtime, it now takes two officers the whole tour of duty to process one, however minor, if that case is going to be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service and the court. It is precisely this, which leads police officers to use fixed penalty notices, thereby avoiding the entire charging and court process.

This is absolutely ridiculous. What we need is a bonfire, onto which we throw the unnecessary regulation of policing and investigation in a measured, intelligent way. We should have completely different rules of disclosure for minor offences. We should open up the provisions of RIPA to less serious cases but cut down on the complexity of the authorisation required by RIPA.

We should have very tight regulations for dealing with the cases that are "mad bull elephants", with murder and rape and conspiracy to commit terrorist offences and for those offences with grave consequences for reputations such as allegations of child sex abuse. For common assault, for shoplifting, for some minor deception, however, we need very light regulations indeed. It should not be for the prosecution to seek out all the possible evidence that could be obtained in such cases: it should be for them to provide simply sufficient evidence for a prosecution to succeed. There is no reason why, in the case of a minor assault, where there are witnesses and medical evidence, the police should spend time being required to search for CCTV evidence. We need to return to summary justice being summary: something, which is quick and straightforward. We need a wholesale revamping of the regulations to get police officers out on the streets where they belong, as the papers are calling for this very morning. Such reforms would also shorten summary trials, by stopping that branch of defence criminal justice which seeks to challenge process rather than evidence.

We are making progress. Many of these views are supported by the senior judiciary. Here in London, in partnership with the CPS, we have introduced a shortened file for cases for trial in magistrates' courts where there is an anticipation of a guilty plea. This is based on a summary of evidence and saves two hours per officer per case. With the support of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the London Chief Crown Prosecutor, it will now roll out across London, saving tens of thousands of hours of police time. It is to the credit of The London Criminal Justice Partnership that, should a defendant plead not guilty, only sufficient evidence for the case to be
effectively tried will be required. This will further reduce the paperwork. These changes will need support across the entire justice system: there will be interests both principled and vested who will be opposed. These reforms need to move quickly out of London. A further issue of contradiction is the current performance regime under which the CPS works. This punishes those cases, which have been charged but do not end in conviction. This means that prosecutors constantly seek far more evidence than is necessary to make a charging decision, which wastes a lot more time. These perverse incentives, which increase the paperwork burden, need to be removed.

What this means is that those who are framing and administering summary criminal justice need to have courage.

And there is one particular basis on which they can do that. That is that the culture of the police service has changed out of all recognition, over the last 30 years. In any large organisation, there will always be people who behave badly but there is just no evidence at all of a widespread
culture of police misbehaviour, of, as it was called, the "fitting up" of suspects, the fabrication of confessions: the police service is clean. As my predecessor, Paul Condon, said in another context - about corruption - "the Met is the cleanest big city force in the world". I think that applies to the police service in England and Wales generally, to a professional, well-trained, well-paid service, which is interested in truth and justice.

However, we also have some things to do and I do not think we should only look at the speck in someone else's eye but at a rather large chip in the police's own. The police service has some further work to do outside criminal justice. It has to overhaul its extraordinarily complicated method of recording crimes, the National Crime Recording Standard and its equally ill-visaged sister, the National Standard for Incident Recording, which is coming up on the rails. It is a well know adage that the best is often the enemy of the good. It is these standards that have led to all those stories being reported about crimes being recorded for throwing chips in the street. It is these standards that have effectively abolished the offence of aggravated burglary. It used to be one - very serious - offence for somebody to break into a house with a gun and take a pile of jewellery and possessions off everybody in there. It isn't now, it's a series of individual robberies - one for each victim - has now to be recorded which is just arrant nonsense which misleads our intelligence picture of such crimes. We need to be bold and change this whole mindset. From the recording of crime to the appearance of defendants in court, we need to reduce the cost of administration.

So, what do I want out of criminal justice? I think it needs to be as transparent as possible, it needs to embrace whatever new technologies we can find for it, including the virtual courts now being experimented here in London, although I hope Ron de Witt will contradict me later, I will not hold my breath for the integration of criminal justice information technology systems. It needs continually to increase its level of customer care, so that we can increase confidence in the administration of justice, which is a fundamental duty of government. Here in London, confidence is the highest in the whole country, but it is only 47%.

Above all, it needs to be a system which listens to the public and to the concerns of that public. It needs to be local. Bringing those things together means that the agencies involved need to work together and I want to tell you about one way in which we are doing this in London. In this city, one pre-eminent public concern is the propensity of young people to use violence on one another. The dreadful murder of Rizwan Darbar on Monday is an example. A single stab wound, a life snuffed out.

We have to stop the growing incidence of weapons being carried on our streets. We already have extensive laws in relation to guns, although more will probably have to be done. However, the carrying of knives and other offensive weapons, particularly by young people, is much more common and, potentially, just as deadly. I believe that everyone, anyone, carrying a knife or similar weapon on the streets of London should appear in court. It should be for the court to determine what punishment will follow. This does not necessarily mean prison but it does mean that everyone who carries a knife, and is caught doing so, should appear in front of an appropriate court and understand, through that process, the severity of what they have done and the possible consequences of carrying such things in public, not only to others but also themselves.

The rules on which a decision to caution rather than charge are not a matter for the police but for the CPS. In the last 12 months in this city, 565 adults and 228 youth offenders have been cautioned in London for these offences. That is about a quarter of offenders in each category, although that rises to half for possession of offensive weapons. I find that totally unacceptable.

I am pleased to say that the Metropolitan Police has now reached agreement with the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London over this issue in relation to adults. The Chief Crown Prosecutor's new guidance makes clear that, where sufficient evidence of an offence of possession of a bladed article or other offensive weapon, it will normally be in the public interest to charge. In the case of youth offending, the situation is more complex because there are more agencies involved. However, I am now writing to the Youth Justice Board and to the Crown Prosecution Service, asking that a review be made of the situation in relation to young people.

I repeat that I am not asking that everyone who carries a knife goes to prison. I also know that there must be exceptions, such as foreign travellers transiting Heathrow, but what I want to see is that everyone who carries a knife or other offensive weapon on the streets of London knows
they are at risk of going to prison because they will be appearing in front of magistrates, rather than being cautioned. I think that is the right way forward and this kind of change represents the kind of awareness of public concerns that should be the hallmark of a criminal justice system which is visible, responsive and accountable.'

The Pub Philosopher Agrees

Whilst on patrol of all the usual Blog Spots I was heartened to read the comments of The Pub Philosopher and his thoughts on Sir Ronnie Flanagan's Review of Policing he said; "Ronnie Flanagan is right to say that a culture change is needed but that does not just apply to police forces. Government, the media and the public have to give the police back some of the leeway and discretion that they used to have, rather than regulating and scrutinising them to such an extent that they become ineffective".

See, it's not just the winging coppers complaining about paper work etc. Sir Ronnie Flanagan has realised it and now, an esteemed blogger from outside the police service is also supporting our frustration. Come on Prime Minister let's see some action and change!

What do community support officers do?

Now I (like PC Bloggs), was going to do a piece about the GMP Pond incident where the small boy died and the PCSO's got a hammering in the media but I will refrain. Apart that is to say; my thoughts go out to all those who have been touched by the boy's death and my condolences go to his family.

Like PC Bloggs, I wasn't there so can't comment on the details of the incident however, what this has done though is once again bring home the confusion the public have about the role and responsibility of the PCSO.

The BBC have rightly asked what exactly is the role of a community support officer and what training and responsibilities do they have? A good question... And, it's the same question that every police officer, every member of the public and indeed, and I expect most of the PCSO service would like an answer to as well!

Today there are something like 16,000 community support officers patrolling our streets but usually only during the day. They are supposed to be easily identifiable but, in many areas, the uniform they wear is so similar to that of a fully sworn police officer, it is almost impossible to tell them apart. They are intended to deter criminals and reassure communities by their high-visibility presence? The law abiding citizens think they are police officers and the crooks think they are a joke and confusion reigns supreme!

In December this year they are supposed to be getting standardised powers and a nationally accredited training package but PCSOs will subsequently require more training at a greater cost. The Home Office originally said it did not want PCSOs, to be a "paler shade of police officer".
Paul Kelly, chairman of the Police Federation in Manchester, said that PCSOs were incapable of dealing with emergencies. “The public are being fooled,” he said. He continued by saying; "We are sending people out there who are dressed as police officers". And concluded; “We should do away with PCSOs because they are a failed experiment. In Greater Manchester we have taken on up to 400 PCSOs in the past 18 months but in the same period have reduced the number of police officers by more than 200. We should be investing in more police officers.”

Alf says: The original concept may have had some good points but the whole PCSO issue has, mainly for financial reasons, become so skewed it is now untenable. The reality is that the PCSO has just been used to con the public into thinking there are more police officers on the streets. Providing policing on the cheap! And now in many areas, fully sworn officers are not being recruited. Do we want 'proper' police officers to provide police services in our communities or, are we happy with a cheap copy? I think we all know what the answer is?

Ronnie Reports...

BBC News 12^th Sep 2007: Police officers in England and Wales are bogged down in red tape and afraid to use their own judgement, the chief inspector of constabulary has said. That’s nothing new; police officers have been saying this for ages! However, today the Home Office published Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s ‘interim report’ on police reform so what’s actually in his review? Here are some of the key recommendations and my initial comments following on from my previous post. I intend to examine the document more fully at some later point…

On initial read, it is refreshing to see that Sir Ronnie has the same viewpoint about policing as I and many others. He starts his report by saying; “Despite the much-changing context of policing in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the fundamental values of the police service, as encapsulated in the nine principles based on the General instructions issued to every member of the Metropolitan Police at the time of its foundation in 1829, remain in my view valid to this day”.

Alf says: What a refreshing change! However, it would be very worrying if someone who has devoted such a large proportion of his life to ‘the job’ did not think in that way.

He (Sir Ronnie) commenced his report with that age old chestnut of ‘Reducing Unnecessary Bureaucracy’. In Para 1.15 he talks about the matter of crime recording and what we actually record as a ‘crime’; I am conscious that even in the very recent past this area can quickly become a matter for party political debate which I feel can be unhelpful to operational policing.

Alf says; Exactly, take politics out of policing once and for all.

Recommendation 4: There should be a non-party political but truly cross party debate to inform a revision of recorded crime statistics, particularly in the areas currently designated as violent crime. In this context, a closer examination of why international police colleagues do not record anything like the level of activity as ‘violent crime’ will be critical.

Alf says: Paperwork, the blight of the service!

Recommendation 5: ACPO should work with the NPIA to produce mandatory standard forms based on the minimum appropriate reporting requirements. This work should be completed by summer 2008 and forces should adopt them unless there are compelling local reasons for variation.

Alf Says; Also to be commended however, if the government and ACPO actually comply, this will mean another set of bloody forms we have to get acquainted and proficient with, in double quick time!

Part of Recommendation 8 when looking at ‘Activity Based Costing’ etc. states; the NPIA should carry out an investigation of the suitability of Airwave to gather information on officers’ daily activities by summer 2008.

Alf says: I’m no ludite as some would expect and, I’m all for using technology to assist in the data gathering processes however, we have to be confident that technology will present ‘accurate’ data. With all the recent concerns about Airwave functionality, are we sure this will deliver what we want?

Para 2.3 of the report discusses the issues around ‘the unrelenting’ focus on mainstreaming Neighbourhood Policing. But it goes on to say ‘Neighbourhood Policing does not, cannot and must not operate in isolation from the rest of the police family’.

Alf says: I think any ‘practitioner’ who has been in policing for some time fully understands the fundamental values of Neighbourhood Policing. What we all struggle to understand is how response teams have been marginalised, under funded and undervalued at the expense of NPT? Policing in the UK was always about those principles which the NPT methodology has adopted. The problems have been failing to realise that there will always be an associated real time ‘crisis management’ urgency of function within the police service. Sir Ronnie sums it up by saying; “simply, one cannot exist without the other”. And, they must have equality in funding; you only get what you pay for!

Recommendation 18 talks about the Home Office and NPIA etc looking for a ‘Single National Indicator Set’ that can be applied to measure ‘confidence and satisfaction that are applicable to Neighbourhood Policing’.

Alf says: Right on… If we are to be scrutinised and judged so relentlessly, all aspects of the job and those performing it must be subject to Key Performance Indicators!

Recommendation 21 says that ‘Chief Constables should strive to ensure that those appointed to head BCUs, and appointed to other posts within and integral to Neighbourhood Policing, should as far as possible remain in post for at least two years’.

Alf says: For far too long the service has suffered from (and even rewarded) those who move from post to post willy nilly. Let’s finally get away from the mentality that supports the ‘job tarts’ that flit from one post to another for an extra notch on the CV. Or, seeks to castigate those who are happy (and performing well) in a particular roll. Not everyone wants promotion!

Recommendation 22: NPIA’s Neighbourhood Policing Programme should investigate the feasibility of giving greater recognition to officers and staff who remain on neighbourhood Policing teams for a lengthy period of time.

Alf says: See last comment.

Recommendation 26: The NPIA should research the feasibility of a volunteer PCSO scheme and report on its findings by Summer 2008.

Alf says: Bugger, more PCSOs! No, on a serious note that’s fine but let’s have some standardisation of their roll, their powers and the way they are dressed. Let’s stop conning the public into thinking they are actually ‘Police Officers’… They are not and never will be! This wasn’t the intention and should never be. The PCSO has a valuable part to play in today’s policing service but let’s do it honestly!

Perhaps we are going to see some beneficial change for once?

Sir Ronnie Flanagan

Sir Ronnie Flanagan who has been HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary since February 2005 has had his appointment extended to January 2009. The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, has been quoted as saying; “This extension will ensure continuity in this crucial area during the year ahead as the police service continues its challenging reform programme and Sir Ronnie takes forward his independent review of policing.”

I have to agree with her comments about ‘continuity’. Any stability in the thought processes governing police reform must be a good thing however; I like many others would challenge the validity of the word ‘independent’. Many changes imposed on the police service over recent years have, in many respects, been short term ‘knee jerk’ reactions to long term problems.

The reasoning behind the implementation of many of these changes often look suspiciously like they were ‘engineered’ just to win votes or, boost flagging public opinion in our government for the pollsters. I would like to think Sir Ronnie Flanagan has enough metal about him to paint the true picture however, my concern is; given the short timescale he has been allowed for delivery of his review, only leads me to thinking the government are once again looking for a ‘quick fix’. A short term methodology to placate the concerns of the service in some way, being that Sir Ronnie is held in fairly high esteem by many of those to which the review will apply. It’s overall success in identifying meaningful and worthwhile change will remain to be seen!

The Conservatives on Police Pay?

Police Pay - The Conservatives: At a time when we (the Police) appear to be needed more than ever before, the last thing we should have to worry about is the financial security for ourselves and our families. Edmund Davies gave us (and the Government) an ‘agreed’ method to calculate increases but this Labour Government have refused to honour it once again. The question has to be asked however; would things be any different if the Conservatives came to power?

I agree that the Edmond Davies ‘agreement’ may be getting ‘long in the tooth’ but I would challenge the government suggestion that; ‘it is no longer fit for purpose’. It has stood the test of time because it was effective, fair and transparent. What the government really mean is… Ooh, proper policing is bloody expensive, how can we get it cheaper? Shock horror, you can’t, simple as that! Policing requires proper funding and investment, both in the organisation and in those individuals tasked with performing the function. Policing on the cheap does not work and will never work.

David Cameron may have put ‘police reform’ high on his list of priorities but this may just be more rhetoric after all, they are in effect a party in waiting. They are waiting for their chance to sit upon high, ensuring their pockets are full each year like every political party before them. It’s getting to the stage where British politics could be likened to communism, whatever the political colour… Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others!

Despite David Cameron appointing Nick Herbert as Shadow Minister for Police Reform with a brief to lead a Taskforce on the issue, it appears their interim report 'Policing for the People' may just mean ‘same old same old’ but this time it’s got a blue cover. They (Conservatives) do at least appear to want to listen (unlike the government). They have set up a website to receive views from all those concerned. Sir Ian Blair called for a national debate on the police in 2005 by asking, "What kind of police service do we want…? Two years down the line and there is still a government intention to refuse or stifle that debate.

One of the corner stones of our democratic society is getting things changed by debate and strength of public opinion. Let’s have a go at discussing the issues and putting our views across to the Conservatives at http://www.policereform.com/ after all, there is a distinct chance we may well have to negotiate with them in the future!

Johno Hills (Ex Sussex Detective)

Johno Hills (Ex Police Officer): As a police officer of four years with Thames Valley and latterly Sussex Police, Ex DC Johno Hills understood early on in his training that the level of crime depended on the opportunity for it to actually occur in the first place before it could succeed. In short prevention is better than cure!

Some have suggested that Mr Hills may have some personal axe to grind with his previous employer and, that is why he has ‘jumped on the band wagon’ of berating this government’s policing policies. Whatever his personal reasons, and there may be some, the fact remains, the vast majority of his ‘observations’ and ‘concerns are correct. This has to be classed as extremely astute, for one so young in service. In that short length of time in ‘the job’, he found himself chasing quick and easy detections in order to get a ‘tick in the box’ and, convince his supervisors to consider him as a ‘performing officer’.

Now most of us would agree there has to be some form of benchmark as to an individuals performance however, that benchmark should only ever be an indicator or first line of evidence for a manager to ‘effectively’ motivate or reprimand their staff, in other words, actually manage them, a skill that for one reason or another is often sadly lacking today.

Mr Hills ultimately paid the price for challenging the establishment and his employers in February 2007 however, by raising his head above the parapet, he found himself ‘at odds with the responsibilities of a serving police officer’ and this led to his subsequent resignation and later suspension. Mr Hills states “the loss of my job and career is inconsequential when considering how much there is to gain”.

After spending an hour or two reading his blog articles and comments from readers it was apparent, his thoughts and concerns about Britain’s police service are justifiable and supported with reasoned arguments. The quotations from Sir Robert Peel which I found in his pages (and have used myself before) are as relevant to policing in the 21^st Century as they were when they were originally written in the 1800's:

• "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions."


• "The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."


• "Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime."

Whether or not Mr Hills is receiving financial remuneration, as a direct result of his outpourings, is immaterial now he has left ‘the job’. What should be of more concern to us all is; why an apparently well motivated police officer should feel such a strong need to take the actions he did? I for one wish him every success in his future!

Social decline or just too damn soft?

Thousands of mourners gathered in Liverpool for the funeral service of murdered schoolboy Rhys Jones recently. The media and our Nation are united in grief and disgusted. People are rightly asking how something like the murder of a small boy can happen. And just as importantly, what can we do to prevent it happening again?

Winifred Robinson (BBC reporter), recalls her childhood in Liverpool's Norris Green estate in the early 1960s and observes today’s problems asking why things have changed? Drugs, Violence, Vandalism, Gang Culture and a general feeling that, even if you stand to be counted and give evidence to the police about the thugs… No-one can touch them!

Our communities may have many problems which include unemployment and fractured families but none of these are new. What makes them more profound and a person more knowledgeable about their actual existence is the wider ‘real time’ ability of the media. I recall early in my service when talking to a colleague in Manchester, being totally shocked at the amount of violent crime they had way back then. Crime that was ‘old news’ by the time the media got hold of it and, as a consequence, not sensational enough! However, a catalyst in today’s mayhem has to be the prominence of drug dealers… Large amounts of money are always powerful incentives!

Internet news sites, forums for social comment and blogs are packed solid with wailing doom and gloom about the issues. A comment (produced in its entirety) from the Norris Green Article explains a lot: “My mother would always caution against seeing the past in too rosy a hue. She'd remind us that there were always families who couldn't cope with life's pressures, people who had mental breakdowns, who drank and let their children run amok, people who didn't know how to behave. But in the past, if standards of good behaviour were not set at home, when children stepped outside, a whole host of confident adults were there to impose order; they included neighbours, teachers, police and the local vicars and priests. An old family friend reminded me how her son Billy had been dragged in off the streets by a bobby and hauled before his parents where he was given a dressing down for being a vandal”. Unfortunately we now have the situation whereby, there is little fear of actually being caught for your minor misdemeanours.

We need to get tough every one cries… Let’s have some of that good old Zero Tolerance stuff that Ray Mallon brought to the UK from America! Ok. So despite the undoubted success of the zero tolerance approach, why is it the community that actually benefited from it are now baying for the removal of the man who delivered it? (Link) Simple! The public, the media and in many respects the government are all fickle. They are only interested in the ‘here and now’ and what actually affects them as individuals, they are not concerned about the ‘wider picture’ or underlying root causes of a problem, be it social or otherwise.

Zero tolerance policing actually runs counter to community policing or ‘policing by consent’, a system which has, until relatively recently, always served us well in the UK. This has been realised by many and, the government have responded with Safer Neighbourhood policing. However, despite the undoubted virtues of both elements, the government has failed in their duty to fully support both regimes. These two systems need to be run in seamless parallel.

‘Proper cops’ on the streets have been replaced by street wardens or community support officers with little or no ‘real power’ and the thugs and crooks know this. And, those Police Officers that are actually able to patrol are drowning in endless waves of paperwork resulting from government statistic chasing. They have had their discretion removed, they are younger in service with less experience, and they are constantly verbally and physically abused by the public they serve, on top of this the government now want to reduce their salaries in real terms. Is it any wonder that even the cops are disillusioned and things are going to pot (no pun intended)!

The government are in effect creating a two tier system, instead of a policing function that can provide the two systems in ‘seamless parallel’. It has created police officers with endless powers of enforcement and a secondary uniformed support element with little or no powers. This in turn is creating public misconceptions about the actual ability and worth of our police service. A service that has, until recently, always been community based and ‘policed by consent’ but has also provided enforcement when required. A multi skilled, multi functional service that was flexible to demand. And what is the reason for all this? Governmental financial constraint! The constraints which are actually driven by the depth of the public pocket, a pocket we must all be prepared to dig deep into if we want the police service we require and deserve!

Now more than ever we need to adjust or priorities and perceptions about policing. We must stop conning ourselves (and the public) that community support officers and street wardens are actually ‘police officers’. All we are doing is providing ‘policing on the cheap’ and will undoubtedly suffer the consequences in the longer term! Let fully sworn police officers provide the service that the public expects of them, a service they (should) have the training and expertise to actually deliver!

United Front to challenge Govt.

Police Oracle Report: Superintendents To Call For Policing Review - The president of the Superintendent's Association will call for government police performance measures to be scrapped, a review of policing, and an end to the police pay dispute at their 2007 annual conference... Now it really is time for the government to sit up and listen! No longer is it just the 'winging' federated ranks 'moaning' about poor conditions as some would have you believe. No, even the 'bosses' are telling them their policies on policing are wrong... The Supers comments go hand in glove with all the recent comment and criticism leveled from ACPO ranks which has been aired so forcefully in the media of late.

Listen NOW Gordon Brown our face the plight of your predecessors at the end of the 70's!

Despondent? Me?

I have always been happy to be British and enjoyed all that is good about our Nation. I remember the feelings of pride on taking my oath as a police officer and during the final passing out parade at PTC Dishforth. Today I’m finding it harder to know what the ‘good’ things are, where the ‘Great’ in Britain has gone and even more worrying, how I’m often embarrassed to let anyone know what I do for a living?

When you Google the subject there is an absolute plethora of people with the same thoughts! Why is this? Are we a Nation of non believers in our own worth? Or, is it just the fact we like to have a moan about something? When there is actually nothing wrong with our life do we crave the desire to invent something? Successfully concluding with a ‘rose tinted spectacles’ view that, everything was better when… Or, it wasn’t this bad years ago and, I blame the politicians etc. etc.

In the article Impressions after a week back a correspondent to the British ExPats site, asked: “Why there was litter everywhere, why there was a lack of public toilets, why everyone drives so fast, why you have to pay to park at supermarkets and hospitals, why vending machines are always broken and never give any change and… Why are there so many fat people?” Why indeed!

I think one of the fundamental reasons behind our moaning and groaning is often our staid attitude to life and, a blind acceptance of the status quo. British people today are too scared to have any outspoken opinion for fear of ‘rocking the boat’ of liberalism. How often have you asked someone with a furrowed brow how they are, just to get the reply ‘mustn’t complain’. It’s in our nature to do nothing about a problem until it is almost too bloody late, then we start to kick arse! Perhaps British people need to get to grips with some continental attitudes to life?

We always accept the marked up price of a commodity for sale, pay the extortionate amount and then proceed to wonder off mumbling about how bloody expensive it was? In many other nations the marked up price is just a starting figure for negotiation and bartering! We tend not to complain about poor service, would an American? We are prepared to queue for hours, would a German? And, we blame everyone but ourselves for the decline in moral or ethical standards.

The famous 70’s anarchist and punk rocker John Lydon once said: “I wore a T-shirt with a Union Jack on it, and I was asked if it was a racist statement! Bizarre? How can wearing your own National Flag in your own country be offensive? It drives me nuts”. Now I’m not suggesting for one moment we should all turn to anarchy but he does have a point. Why can’t we stand proud, stand up to be counted and stop rubbishing ourselves all the time?

So why does it appear we (the police) are loosing control of the streets? Tim Dowling (The Guardian) when commenting on ‘What makes Britain Great’ wrote about: ‘The world's least scary police’. He said, “It's not just the lack of guns or the breast shaped hats; British police, alone or in groups, are almost incapable of maintaining an aura of menace... The postmen are more intimidating. This may not help their clear-up rate much, but as a foreigner I find it particularly endearing”. And why do we wear ‘breast shaped hats’? Maintenance of the status quo that’s why, British traditionalist values! Unfortunately these values are not possessed by many people and, if they do have them, they certainly don’t fully understand them. You can only successfully promote values and standards that you are capable of displaying yourself and here is another problem.

Tim Dowling talks about the ‘aura of menace’ but this is not a methodology we should ever employ. We don’t police by force, despite government interference pushing us in that direction. The direction that is seeing the creation of a two tier policing structure, one that sees a level of policing with very limited powers for the ‘community’ and one with a vast armoury of weapons for enforcement. To continue with our ‘traditional values’ of ‘policing by consent’ we need to substitute ‘menace’ with the word ‘presence’. Unfortunately we are often prevented from providing that due to mountains of paper! Removal of height limits for recruits and a general scruffy appearance in many officers also precludes the public from feeling our presence. If we are tied so much by ‘tradition’ in this country, why can’t we return to traditional policing values?

I would like to think I am still proud to be British and proud to be a British Bobby but I have to say it’s getting increasingly more difficult... However, Bill Bryson wrote: "The British are the happiest people in the world. Watch any two Britons in conversation and see how long it is before they smile or laugh over a joke or pleasantry." Perhaps I should make do with that?

Despondent? Not me!

Evening All... PC Dixon reporting for duty!

A NORTH-EAST chief constable yesterday (230807) introduced "the Dixons of Dock Green for the 21st Century" as he unveiled plans to put hundreds of officers onto neighbourhood beats. Cleveland Police are to ‘flood local communities’ with officers in the hope of driving down crime and restoring public confidence in policing. At the launch (see BBC Video Report), Chief Constable Sean Price likened the idea to the classic BBC television series. He went on to say the ‘traditional style of policing is now back, with nearly 600 police and community support officers dedicated to community beats across Teesside’. The initiative apparently is part of a scheme whereby the Cleveland force will sign up to the One North East Regional Image campaign.

Alf says: Here we go again with the 'reinvention of the wheel'? When I joined, policing was all about providing a service to the community and the neighbourhood; it’s only since the government started with their target driven performance culture, that we were forced into loosing sight of that. Anyways, they reckon that ‘image is everything’ don’t they? What would I know after twenty odd years? It must be nice though to have almost half our actual force establishment dedicated to the task of Neighbourhood Policing, in a force area smaller than any one of our divisions! (I know it should be BCU or ACU but I can’t get used to this new terminology)

BBC: Force plans street patrols boost… Hundreds more officers are to be assigned to community policing duties across Teesside. Mr Price said: "I have carried out extensive consultation and the public and their representatives have made it very clear that they want a more visible, community-based police service”.

Alf Says: And I wonder just how much public money and police resources were actually expended on finding that out? Could have gone into any police station and asked any bobby that! You know, the ones who are chained to a desk filling out mountains of paperwork or submitting the latest target returns for some ‘special operation’. The one, that for all intents and purposes, is just a normal policing function except it has a fancy bloody title.

In November 2004 the BBC reported: “It is rare to hear a government minister interviewed these days without the words 'record numbers of police' popping up somewhere”. The report went on to highlight that; the majority of political comment in this vein is often just spin and rhetoric.

Alf Says: Three years down the line and the ACPO officers now appear to have attended the same ‘media sound bite course’ and, I for one don’t feel able to think any differently. Far too often it’s all about individuals in high places, attempting to get recognised as ‘suitable’ to lead a bigger force, or the next half baked government policing initiative (with a bigger salary)!

Dixon History: Beginning in 1955 and finally ending in 1976, Dixon of Dock Green was the longest running police series on British television and although its homeliness would later become a benchmark to measure the "realism" of later police series, such as Z Cars and The Bill, it was an enormously popular series.

Alf Says: As there is only one place in the UK called Dock Green (to my knowledge), in the town of Crewkerne (Somerset), perhaps we should take on their vision for Neighbourhood Policing by watching the Avon & Somerset 'Stronger Neighbourhoods' video. After all, it can clearly be seen from their figures that, Crewkerne is a hotbed of urban deprivation and crime. They’ve actually had 209 so far this financial year however, the hard work and determination of their NPT has significantly reduced this figure in the last year by 37… There’s successful target driven performance for you!

Alf also says: I note from the Northern Echo article that, to my knowledge, at least three of the Cleveland NPT Managers are transferees from the North Riding. I suppose it’s refreshing to see that ‘we’ have helped Cleveland put the old fashioned values back into policing. Just a pity our area establishment and structure can only afford this luxury at the expense of 24/7 response policing.

PCSOs are just Cheap Cops!

Reports today have suggested; Community Support Officers only solve one crime every six years, and consequently they aren't worth employing, according to figures obtained by a FOI request and reported in The Daily Mail. The government immediately countered by saying detecting crime was not in the CSO remit. That's correct, but it's also not their remit to take the place of fully sworn police officers and that's the reality on our streets.

The Police Federation's Alan Gordon said: "PCSOs have been seen by some as a cheap alternative to police officers, who can make the public feel safe... we were right to be concerned about what benefits they bring to the table."

In the past year the number of PCSOs nationwide has nearly doubled. Talking of double, how can it be economically sound when CSOs nearly always work in pairs and, police officers (who's starting wage can be significantly less), are often expected to work alone?

A Home Office spokesperson also said: "To attempt to measure their success solely by looking at the number of penalty notices and crimes they detect is to miss the point". And here is the most important point. If they are not expected to have their performance 'measured' why then are police officers?

If CSO's should be free from the the encumbrance of KPIs and allowed to provide reassuring visible patrols, surley police officers should be afforded the same luxury? In addition, the police officer can fully deal with whatever they come across, The CSO can't!

Policing by Consent...

A fundamental cornerstone of successful law and order in Britain has always been the concept of ‘Policing by Consent’. Perhaps our increasing lawlessness (actual or perceived), particularly amongst the young, is due to an underlying decrease in that level of Consent? The nine principles laid out by Charles Reith in A New Study of Police History gave a clear description of the philosophy of ‘policing by consent’. (Edited below)

1. To prevent crime and disorder.

2. The power of the police to fulfil their functions is dependent on public approval.

3. Securing / maintaining approval of the public requires willing co-operation of the public in observance of laws.

4. The extent to which the public co-operate diminishes proportionately to the use of physical force.

5. Preserving public favour requires the absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of individual laws.

6. Only use physical force when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public.

8. Strictly adhere to police functions and refrain from authoritatively judging guilt.

9. Recognise the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder.

Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, the first joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, had the conception that the police force was; ‘unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation’.

So, if the police are failing society and loosing their consent surely our understanding and adherence to the nine principles must be deteriorating? If so, whose fault is it? I would argue that it is society itself who are in many ways responsible and, their opinion in turn drives government. So, perhaps there is a need for police reform?

In 2004, a Sunday Times article an American sociologist Charles Murray argued, because of public opinion, there was a case for retributive justice. The principle being that, the criminal justice system should “primarily punish criminals for the harm they have inflicted on their victims”. It went on to say, “reforming criminals or preventing further crimes by incarceration is secondary to that function”. Yes, there is a need to punish the ‘criminal’ however perhaps Murray misses the point in that, not all people who break laws are actually criminal.

Issue 228 of the Socialist Review in 1999 asked: Can the police be reformed? They thought not by saying, “we have a more militarised police force than ever. Just as successful reformism becomes a dream of the past, so does successful policing by consent”. Yes the publication has extreme left wing tendencies and, is often biased about the police, seeing us as protectors of the rich and punishers of the poor, so I can only agree with them to a point. The article also suggests that, “the police cannot be reformed in any fundamental way, unless there is a wholesale assault on society”.

“We believe it is vital if reform is to take place that it is carried out on a basis of service effectiveness not just financial efficiency. The public must be left with an improved, more effective force that is able to provide a better service”. Jan Berry, Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales

The methodology of our government’s Police Reform programme has extolled the virtues of Neighbourhood Policing however, their target driven performance culture often precludes us from this ideal. The Police Federation also support the principle; “Community policing, today, is a political rarity: it is something supported by all three main parties, backed by both tabloids and broadsheets and, most important of all, demanded by the general public.

The inherent belief (perceived or actual) that our society is lawless has, in many ways been bolstered by public opinion which in turn, has been pumped up to a frenzy by media hype. Our society is not as lawless and criminal as some would have us believe. The Police in Britain often have major success in dealing with the ‘real criminals’ in our society, where we are actually failing the public is in the control of Anti Social Behaviour.

Anti-social behaviour is; any activity that impacts on other people in a negative way. Despite a 39% drop in the incidence of crime since 1995, anti-social behaviour remains a serious issue with around 66,000 reports of ASB made to authorities each day (Source: One day count of anti-social behaviour: September 10 2003).

The ASB issue, as recent media reports confirm, is a major problem in our society. Booze fuelled yob culture is taking over our streets, why is this? Simple, police resources do not and cannot meet actual demand. Our ability to cover the 24/7 response aspect of our remit has been seriously eroded. This is a direct consequence of the government Police Reform programme and its subsequent application by some Chief Constables.

Any Police Officer who joined the force ‘to provide a service’ fully understands the concept of Community Policing. This is the way we have always done our job, until the intervention of politicians that is! Yes, some of the more urban forces may have partially lost sight of the concept but in many ways, this in itself was due to demand. The demand that saw limited resources that only ever interacted with the social miscreants of society. However, to suggest a one size fits all reform process for Neighbourhood Policing Teams was fundamentally flawed. The actual establishment of many forces precludes success and, in many ways, has set them up for failure.

Where is the way forward? The government must stop interfering with police services, they must stop dictating procedure to the police, they must remove their target driven performance measurements after all, these targets and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are only there to adorn the CV of individual politicians or political parties. Police officers and their Chief Constables must be left to Police by Consent!