UKC

The home secretary stunned delegates at the Police Federation conference in Bournemouth as she criticised officers for in some instances displaying a "contempt for the public" in their handling of sensitive cases.

Citing excessive stop and search inflicted on black communities and failures in handling domestic violence cases, May said problems appeared to lie with a significant minority of officers rather than just "a few bad apples".

 

Thats come back to bite her in the arse.....she's now encouraging stop and search....

In reply to Jim 1003:

It must be hard for the cops, damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/london-sees-rise-knife-crimes-180224...

If they stop young black men they are "racist", if they do not stop young men, they are being "too PC."

In reply to Big Ger:

It could be a viz character... PC PC....  "Evenin all - inclusive".

... Gets coat.

 

In reply to Bellie:

:-D

In reply to Jim 1003:

Some people claim that stop on search on a disproportionate number of black youth in london is racist.  However, given the known statistics favouring black-on-black knife violence, not stoping and searching more black youth could be argued to be racist in that the police are not using their powers to protect the victims, themselves largely from a minority.

Interestingly nobody seems to complain about agism when it comes to searching people who are also largely young.  

The police seem to be damned whatever they do.  

In reply to Wintertree : the original stop and search is problematisk as it was used as a way to harrass black youth.  It wasnt much to do with preventing crime, more to let people know who was boss.  So you should be damned for that, and it makes close policing politically very sensitive now

 

In reply to wbo:

Is that a fact or an interpretation?  

In reply to Coel Hellier:

or just plain anti-police bullshut?

In reply to wbo:

I'm not entirely convinced by that, though I'm sure as a gang member who felt you ruled the patch, that was the perception.

However PACE was introduced in 1984. Thirty four years ago.

So your aggrieved 16 year old stopped in the 80's is hitting 50 now, and you have approaching 2 generations of youth who's actual experience is not of a ' Sus law' stop. And several generations of police who have no experience of that at all.

In reply to off-duty:

PACE may well have been introduced as far back as 1984, however the attitudes that necessitated its introduction carried on for long afterwards.

The somewhat right-wing racist sexist and homophobic officers already in various forces continued to be employed, and did in fact not only have great influence on who was employed afterwards as officers, but also who was not and then again who was effectively driven out if they did apply. Added to this they were also the older officers who trained the next generation "on the beat". Then those they chose and trained continued the process.

There were for a long time after 1984 searches carried out that were effectively "sus", but the officers who did it were "clever", in that they could always claim they were "looking for someone answering your description", and there were always other officers around with the same mind-set who would back them up.

Things are getting better, but this is a gradual process - the Police did not magically become "PC" in 1984.

In reply to fred99:

Seems a reasonable position to hold. Interested to see your definition of "long afterwards" and perhaps some evidence to support it.

 

Again an interesting, if not particularly evidenced, position. 

I always like the stereotyping of officers as "right wing". In my experience it's more small c conservative, but as might he expected when the police are drawn from a cross section of society, politically we are pretty divided. 

As for homophobia. You are presumably joking. I know more bosses that are LGB in this organisation than in any other. We really don't care who you sleep with.

These entrenched attitudes that you complain of ''influencing future officers" clearly haven't been very successful.

 

Obviously "someone matching your description" IS a reasonable grounds for a stop search. 

You do realise that we have the power to do stop searches, and just because we do them doesn't mean they are wrong.  Regardless of what those stopped might think.

Indeed not. But 34 years is 4 years longer than nearly all cops who had just joined in 1984 would have served.

And, despite 'community activists' who would like to imagine they are policed as if this is the Southern states of the US in 1950s, it was a ridiculous narrative in the 80s and it remains ridiculous now.

As an aside currently proactive stop search has more or less stopped due to cuts in police numbers.

In reply to Jim 1003:

I can see lots of data on stop search, broken down by ethnicity. 

What I can't find is data on whether or not those searches proved fruitful/drew a blank, broken down by ethnicity.  Can anyone point me to any? 

This may help to illuminate the discussion. 

 

 

In reply to off-duty:

Depends if the description is "Male or female, on foot but could have been heading to a vehicle" and you've been out looking for that person for weeks

jk

In reply to Chris Harris:

Some data here 

http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/2016/12/stop-and-search-and-knife-crime...

In reply to off-duty:

I have had the misfortune to observe persons I know join the local force within the last 10 years, who went from a relatively middle-of-the-road  attitude to a somewhat right-wing "I'm the law and I can tell you what to do" one during their probationary period (and with an equivalent attitude to anyone outside of their new view of "the norm").

Now this must have come about because of the influence of those officers overseeing their probation - and these officers received their influence from those who oversaw them. Because each generation of officers trains the next, to one degree or another, there will continue to be the influence of pre-1984 attitudes in some level for some time to come.

In reply to fred99:

I've met some probationers who were idiots too. The reality of the job usually sharpens up any initial misconceptions of the 'power' that a small plastic card actually give you, and most usually understand that it is a small plastic card, and the actual power comes from their people skills.

Idiots are idiots because they are idiots. The police being the public, we have our share. In my experience less than the general population.

I would certainly agree that joining the cops does bring one face to face with reality, and I've met very few who have been.unaffected by joining, including those from other blue light services.  That change does unfortunately distance many from those they previously associated with. Is the 'fault' just with the new recruit...?

Not sure that ''becoming a policeman and being an idiot" correlates to pre-PACE issues though. It corresponds to being an idiot.

 

In reply to fred99:

There is also the fact that dealing with the general public, particularly when your job steers you towards those who are arseholes, tends to sharpen one's views somewhat.... 

I have friends in the Force, and they all say the same - their views of the general public are influenced far more by the general public themselves than by their colleagues who provided their training.

 

 

In reply to Chris Harris:

I sometimes think being a police wo/man could be enough to make one pretty jaded about human nature and people in general, if one isn't quite exceptionally optimistic & positive as a personality to start with, just from having to deal with the darker aspects as much as they have to.

I've noticed a small change in myself, just from stumbling across certain unpleasant things on the internet, learning about what's happened to certain friends, and gaining 2 nieces and a nephew and pondering the world they're growing up in. I take my hat of any who can do the job and not become jaded.

It ultimately comes down to where one focuses I guess - worth remembering...

In reply to Jim 1003:

You see the same in the licensed trade. Cheerful landlords/ladies driven to madness by constantly dealing with pissed idiots. 

In reply to fred99:

Maybe, just maybe, they drift over to a more authoritarian standpoint not so much because of the way they're trained but because of what they see and experience during their probationary periods. Bearing in mind that many of the people they deal with will be from the "scrote tendency" portion of society, it would hardly be surprising if they developed a somewhat less liberal view of interactions with the public.

However, having worked all around the world, and come into contact with police in many countries, I'm fairly confident that in general British police lean very much more towards the "policing by consent" end of the spectrum than those in most countries. People I know in both the US and in Russia have been equally amazed on seeing "Reality Documentaries" of UK police in action at how softly and non-confrontationally UK officers generally operate.

 

In reply to fred99:

I'm pretty sure as others have said that dealing with the scum of the earth on a daily basis and enduring a stream of verbal abuse from them on a regular basis would certainly push people to the right. Personally I have all the time in the world for the police, when I was younger I came to their attention many times for driving offences, every time I did I treated them with respect and that was reciprocated to me. Mates of mine who were pulled for similar offenses and gave them attitude got attitude back. 

Even now as a biker when I occasionally get stopped my format is get off the bike, remove my gloves and helmet and greet them with good afternoon officer. It sets a very different tone to the encounter than the guys who sit there not only with their helmets on but the vizor down too.

The police do a bloody tough job that most of us couldn't handle, respect them and be thankfull you live in the UK with the professional level of policing we have. 

In reply to fred99:

Even if you're correct (I don't think you are entirely), then why does such a person qualify as right-wing?  Surely, there is enough historical evidence to suggest that left-wing regimes can have quite authoritarian police forces...
As for your assessment of police officers changing to such people post training, then don't they have to to a certain degree?  

 

In reply to Jim 1003:

What we need is more Pc's not more PC....

In reply to Jim 1003:

A bit like Constable Savage:

youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y&

In reply to Dax H:

I know a guy who used to be a police officer who now does outdoor education and generally things involved around having fun with children in the outdoors, and he always feels glad he is no longer a police officer. I think the contrast with his old job, in having people trying to stab him as he put it, is something which never leaves him.

Interestingly, perhaps oddly, he once commented that he thought the less imaginative among his old work colleagues made better police officers. I wouldn't know what to say about that...

In reply to off-duty:

As much as Laurie Taylor makes me want to commit an offence, this episode of Thinking Allowed from earlier this year had some interesting results on how new police recruits view themselves and how that changes over time.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09lylpm?

Well worth a listen. From what I remember many of the recent recruits themselves see themselves as a 'new breed of police' but identify some people in the job ahead of them as from an older breed. So regardless of when PACE came in (and I suppose maybe post Laurence too?) some police officers still perceive pockets of an older culture still there.

In reply to TobyA:

I think I heard it when it first came out, but I'll listen again.

From what I remember the author published a sociological study of new recruits as they went through the first couple of years. I saw some articles she wrote and thought they were a bit confused/confusing.

Appeared to indicate that recruits came in with a somewhat negative view of old timers, but after time joined the culture.

It didnt strike me as exactly rocket science. It's a job that you don't "get" until you do it, even as a special or PCSO. 

I've seen similar for real, new joiners who are guilty of having joined with a crass negative stereotype of current cops, combined with an unrealistic view of their own qualities and abilities.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm not really expecting a reply but as you're the only UKC regular brave enough to out yourself as police, why is that Sussex police is so full of weirdo pervs?  

Sussex Police officer sacked for selling sex - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-43705388

You say the police don't care who officers sleep with, well as long as they aren't charging for it! And the now ex-officer did have the most perfect name as well for his second job... You just couldn't make it up!

In reply to TobyA:

Ah, so not like Sheffield then?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/08/ex-police-officer-jailed-ov...

In reply to Jim 1003:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-stop-and-search-race-myth/

Interesting article in the spectator, concerning the hysteria around Stop and Search, which is of relevance to this debate (well, the OP!).

It turns out that there wasn't really anything wrong with the way in which Stop and Search powers were bring used, prior to their vilification. However, Theresa May needed to find a 'cause celebre' to woo black voters.

By cleverly interpreting the figures she was able to falsely accuse the police of using Stop and Search in a discriminatory manner and in so doing, attract the 'youff' to the Tory cause ...despite her advisors demonstrating that there was very little wrong with the way in which Stop and Search was used.

Ironically, this Tory bullshit was championed by, amongst others, the Guardian waving masses; human rights lawyers (who stand to make a load of cash sueing the 'racist police'); other politicians looking to attract young, ethnic-minority voters and; of course, the people who make it their business to carry drugs and weapons on the streets.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Pesky human rights lawyers hey?  

In reply to Timmd:

They haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, of late!

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

How do you mean?

In reply to Timmd:

You don't need to look much further than Phil Shiner and Cherie Booth to see how far the defenders of human rights have fallen.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

You're basing your opinion of human rights lawyers in general on two people?

I rather think that risks being an inaccurate (and unfair) generalisation...

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

From the article:

"... the statistics demonstrated that you were six or seven times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority. In fact, the Home Office had done research in the relatively recent past which showed that the statistics do not demonstrate this."

Fairly misleading. The research by Peter Waddington's team took place back in 2003 and looked at statistics from Reading and Slough only. Not exactly the "recent past", or representative of the country as a whole.

The changes that May made to stop and search policy in 2014 - eleven years later - were based on newer national research done by HMIC between 2011 and 2014, and which showed that 27% of stops were done without reasonable grounds.

The Spectator promotes a very specific political outlook, and its blogs section is probably not somewhere I'd go for reliable information.

In reply to Timmd:

Hardly. These are leading figures in the profession. They set the tone in more general terms.

Anyway, Phil Shiner wasn't working alone, the was the director of a large company dedicated to harassing ex-servicemen at tax-payers expense.

And, his wasn't the only large Human Rights firm who were in on the act, there are many other. Take Leigh Day as the next biggest example.

And what about the smaller HR firms? A great many are little more than ambulance chasing, no-win-no-fee, cash-for-crash, sickness-on-holiday merchant's whose primary concern is to make profit rather than advance the right of the down-trodden; and take a chunk out of the NHS budget, ramp-up your car insurance or bankrupt the package holiday industry while they're at it.

None of which is to say there aren't people out there doing good work...but the industry is sufficently corrupted to need reform.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Hmmn, the auntie of  my cousins is a human rights lawyer and is unimpeachable in her integrity. 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, maybe work on the theory that 'most' are in the profession for the right reasons?

If you have good reason to think that most aren't, I'm guessing it'd be of interest to other peeps on these forums, if you've the desire to share it...

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Leigh Day were cleared of all misconduct allegations: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/leigh-day-cleared-of-all-allegations/5061...

Compensation for RTA injuries and holiday-related sickness, whether ultimately justified or not, is standard legal work and is not related to human rights law.

In reply to Andy Johnson:

You and your facts.

In reply to Andy Johnson:

The research actually showed that of the approx 9000 records examined 27% were procedurally incorrect, for example insufficient information had been included to, in their opinion, justify reasonable grounds.

Importantly their conclusion was just that ''proceduraly incorrect" as in badly recorded, incorrectly completed, insufficient information. NOT that the searches themselves were unlawful.

As about ten forces didn't have a box to fill in with "object" of the search, I'm surprised it was so few.

That excellent report also highlighted as a good example of a proactive police search,  the search of a vehicle having smelt cannabis and the recovery of £400,000 of cannabis.

Odd, since we have subsequently been instructed not to search on the basis of smelling cannabis. 

By the HMIC and Theresa May.

Also worth bearing in mind this work looked at procedure rather than whether there were disproportionate numbers of BME being searched.

It also flagged up a 9% arrest rate, though agreeing this was a very poor measure of stop searchseffectiveness, a measure we still struggle to define in numerous studies.

In reply to TobyA:

Putting the "sex" into Sussex Constabulary.

In reply to off-duty:

And remaining a bit "sus" too!

 

In reply to Andy Johnson:

As per Off Duty's post, it turns out that the stats you quote are entirely misleading.

An incorrectly completed stop and search form is evidence of an incorrectly completed stop and search form...and not evidence of an illegal search.  

Given that these forms tend to be filled-in on dark and rainy nights, usually under time-bound and pressured circumstances, I'm suprised that any of them stood up to the scrutiny of HMIC and Theresa May...both of whom were looking to prove TM's earlier 'mis-information' regarding the use of stop and search in order to advance their own politically correct credentials.

You and your facts, eh?!

In reply to Andy Johnson:

Oh, and i'd put Leigh Day dodging a charge sheet in the same catagory as OJ Simpson avoiding a life sentance!

They certainly didn't escape the investigation  with their reputation intact...having behaved in much the same was as Phil Shiners rabble!

In reply to Timmd:

Erm. I refer you to your own argument!

 

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

It was a counter example to what seemed to be your generalised and negative point of view. I never said that all human rights lawyers have unimpeachable integrity. So there.  

You do rather seem to have a dim view of human rights lawyer... 

In reply to Timmd:

Do some digging into Cherie Booth, and the company she works for and tell me what you think.

One of the countrys leading Human Rights lawyers working for some of the worlds biggest violators of Human Rights!

And we're not talking about one, eminent HR lawyer here, we're talking about an entire company generating millions of pounds in profit by offering dictators legal loophole and PR advice!

Or, have a look at the activities of the now defunct Public Interest Lawyers, and others like them.

They spent years soliciting for false complaints of brutality at the hands of the British Army in Iraq, deliberately burried the information which disproved the allegations, and then ruthlessly pursued the supposed perpetrators, at public expense, with such venom that some of them comitted suicide.

Again, we're not talking about one bad apple....an entire company geared towards telling lies, defrauding the tax-payer and destroying the lives of vulnerable ex-servicemen and their families. In the name of human rights!

These two examples alone are sufficient to cause wholescale reform of the industry that has grown around the supposed  protection of peoples human rights.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

An entire company, in an industry with many companies, and many individuals. Until you acknowledge that not all human rights lawyer are up to no good, and that there are human rights lawyers with integrity, which is obviously going to be a case,  it's hard to know how rooted in reality your point of view is, because it goes without saying that (as in all areas of life) there will be a spectrum, along which people will be at different points when it comes to morals and integrity, but there doesn't seem to have been anything in your posts which acknowledges this, not explicitly at least. Pardon the possibly brusque tone, a lack of sleep and things to do is making the ideal words harder to find.

Which others like them, can you provide names for them? I'm genuinely interested.

As above, an entire (and single) company in an industry with other companies and many individuals.

Why do they, which industry specific short comings would you change? You seem to arguing very strongly about this, so I'm guessing you must have some 'to hand' as it were. Is there some kind of study of the industry as a whole which you have in mind and can post a link to? 

 

In reply to TobyA:

Police are people. People commit crimes.

In reply to Timmd:

For an explicit acknowledgment of the good work carried out by many HR lawyers, as requested, see my earlier post:

"...none of which is to say there aren't people out there doing good work...but the industry is sufficently corrupted to need reform."

With regards to the extent of the mis-use of H.R. for immoral and illegal personal gain; companies like P.I.L employed hundreds of lawyers, and subcontracted to hundreds more, over a period of 10+ years.

The process of falsley accusing ex-servicemen of HR abuses, and then investigating and prosecuting each case is a complex and lengthy one requiring hundereds of lawyers and thousands of hours; locating and interviewing 'victims' and 'witneses' overseas, taking statements, compiling 'evidence', medical documentation, navigating the legal processes in the military / UK / overseas, administrative work, court appearances...the list goes on.

We're talking hundreds, perhaps thousands, of legally trained people. All in-the-know, all happy to profit from the misery they cause to others and all happy to turn a blind-eye to illegal activity on an industrial scale...and not a single whistleblower amongst them.

Leigh Day were no better - they may have escaped criminal proceedings - but they had their snouts in the same trough. Same M.O., same big-business-low-moral-standards HR advocacy.

As for Cherie Booth, there's no secret about her day-to-day activities.

So, we're talking about the industry-wide, chronic, fradulent, corrupt and immoral activities of hundreds of people over more than a decade - with grevious consiquences  for the real victims.

Thus the need for reform.

How? I have no idea. Bringing these tank and ambulance chasing desperados to account would be a good start.

As would introducing legistlation to ensure that the primary thrust of H.R. law is to protect H.R's....rather than to line the pockets of the likes of Cherie Booth .

 None of which is of any relevance to the O.P., which sought to discuss whether or not T.M's policies on Stop and Search have bitten her in the ass.

It seems to me, they have.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

That's a rant worthy of Guido Fawkes or the Daily Express.

Stop and Search has a vital place in policing but the Police and Home Secretary as she then was recognised that poorly used it could erode the trust between the police and public that is a foundation of policing by consent.

S&S needs to be applied with better intelligence and there is a need for more of it.

That said, if the community doesn't want to be policed 'snitches get stitches' etc then the police are probably dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

 

In reply to David Cohen:

Agreed. All points!