UKC

On another thread a couple of posters, I think including at least one serving police officer, see to think that there is a 'brigade' of anti police people on UKC, who would not wish a swift recovery to a police officer and I suppose at worst assume the officer deserved a near fatal wounding.

I believe there are a good number of people who feel that the police sometimes fall below the standards they expect of them and others who have have had bad experiences with police officers, but is this really the same as the concept of an anti police brigade, with the views outlined above.

Personally I know quite a few serving officers, we don't always agree on everything, but they are mostly decent people, trying their best to do a difficult job. Whilst it is a difficult and important job, I think we should expect the very highest standards from our police force and we have every right to question when they fall short of these standards. The concept we have of policing by concent is really important, we should protect it.

What do you think?

In reply to The New NickB:

A bit like teachers, really. Mostly a group of decent people trying to do a difficult job, with a few bad apples thrown in for good measure.

Y.

In reply to The New NickB:


Here are your high standards:

youtube.com/watch?v=2ssosw1OHRs&

In reply to The New NickB:

After involvement in a recent protest I can honestly say that they're a bunch of provocative tw*ts. Students did retaliate, but the police were totally out of line.

In reply to Yrmenlaf:

Agreed, have met a fair few when I used to help with their PSU training. However there are a few thugs in there too, its the perceived culture of protecting their own no matter what that grates somewhat

In reply to The New NickB: no time for them ca'nt stand the way they talk to you .Also they bend the law to suit them selves. Speeding on the M6 in cumbria they are the worst offenders.

In reply to The New NickB:

I've never had a problem with the police.

I've - almost - never caused a problem that the police have had to deal with


... and when I did, I was explained that I was only riding my bike on the pavement as I hadn't got my lights and it wasn't safe to ride on the road - I was about 11 at the time - an I was on my way home, it had just got darker earlier than I thought.


Some people would have told him to "F*ck off, haven't you got some real criminals to bother?" and they probably have had a lot more issues with the police in later life than I have...

In reply to The New NickB:

I've had good and bad experiences.

The bad ones were self inflicted...

In reply to Franco Cookson:


None of the students at all did anything at all to get a response from the police, of course.

It was them what started it.

In reply to The New NickB:

Good post. For what its worth I pretty much agree with the sentiments expressed but...

20 minutes and we have 8 posters – 3 of whom come across as straightforwardly anti-police.

In reply to Dominion: I'm not on about the london protest. But even there, I can almost guarantee that the police didn't try and calm the situation down. At the end of the day they lost, the state had to pay for the damage and the police looked ridiculous RE royalty.

In reply to The New NickB:
I agree with you and Yrmenlaf.

Franco, I would find your comments more persuasive if they came from someone else.

Myself, I've been on lots of demonstrations in my time, I've been involved in direct action, ie blockaded arms fairs and been dragged off, and I've always been treated decently. And all the dealings I've had with the police over the years as a victim of (minor) crimes have been fine, too.

Obviously there are exceptions. And obviously also, there are mistakes made sometimes with policing decisions, but most police officers are thoroughly decent people, and I'd hope they want the bad apples removed from the force just like the rest of us do.

In reply to off-duty:
I wasn't going to bother posting until I saw your comment. I don't generally bother posting now if someone else has already said what I want to ... think how succinct threads would be if this was a more general habit, ha... but as you're counting up I thought I'd better!

But, switching to maths mode for a mo, I really wouldn't tot up opinions on a thread like this and draw conclusions from the results. It will inevitably attract more posts from people who've had a problem with the police than people who've had no problems. It'll be completely skewed.

In reply to The New NickB:

Seems they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. My personal experiences of the police were positive. Sufficed to say, treat them with the respect you would expect from them and it's reciprocated. Treat them like sh1t and they could, if they so wished, make things so much more difficult for you than you could possibly make things for them.

In reply to The New NickB: It's about time somebody said something positive about the police, so I will. My dealings with them have been minimal, but I've always found them to be effective and professional. I was recently witness to a traffic incident, and the way the police took control was impressive, and the follow-up has been slick and well handled.

No doubt there are some officers who are cretins, but quite frankly they're in a no-win position. The incident in London yesterday shows that they're constantly at risk on our behalf, and yet all they seem to get is grief. If the moaners think they could do better, join up and do so.

In reply to gingerkate: I too think the police are 99% decent and make the best of a bad job, in the remaining 1% I think that there's a combination of bad apples, provocation and cock up.

Too all the anti police brigade, what are you going to do the next time you're burgled, beaten up etc? Call a student protester . . .

In reply to Franco Cookson: Lost? Its not a game... How can any one say the 'police' are this or that. Individuals handling situations badly does mean a group of people should be label in a certain way. oh and 'Almost guarantee' at the end of the day you didn't see everything that happened during protest. It was a very heated situation. Some protester acting like idiots and some of police let the MET down but its not the police as a whole or students as a whole!

In reply to Franco Cookson:

(1) By the state you mean people like me, the taxpayer?

(2) The heir to the throne was in the car and under the circumstances they acted admirably. I think it's safe to assume that given any other country/state then weapons would have been drawn and quite possibly discharged.

In reply to gingerkate:

I think it's a bit of a continuation from another thread.

To be honest I will have skewed any data already by posting my comment.

In my opinion the police always suffer from the two fold problem of
one - being in a job where much of it revolves telling people not to do things
two - bad experiences being passed about much more readily than good ones.

In reply to The New NickB:

Sting is a bit pretentious, but apart from that they are ok.

;0)

In reply to Franco Cookson:

I generally avoid being offensive on posts but if you are prepared to base your judgement on the entire police force on the basis of this, inevitably heated exchange and this the best way you can articulate your views then I suggest that perhaps its you who is a tw@t.
This post certainly makes you come across as one.

In reply to Franco Cookson:







Well there's a surprise! To the OP, a well balanced post.

In reply to The New NickB: Mostly decent people doing a difficult job in frequently trying circumstances. A good many people want to have their cake and eat it regarding breaking the law; it's ok when they do it, but if someone else does it then why don't the police stop them? This is, of course, parody to the point of massive oversimplification but most people believe they have a right to expect a proper and full service from the police when they need it but complain should they be caught speeding, drunk and disorderly or engaged in over-vigorous protesting, for example, and expect those acting for the police to be emotionally disengaged and completely objective even when on the receiving end of verbal abuse and physical assault.

They aren't perfect as a service but if we were all perfect we wouldn't need them. And I couldn't do their job.

Just my two pence worth...

T.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Either that or the close protection team performing a Beirut unload on protesters

In reply to The New NickB: When I see a worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.

In reply to nastyned:

Interesting you don't view the Police as 'working'. Despite all the police action lately they will be subject to cuts and changes in their working practises without any recourse to industrial action.

In reply to pec:

Actually it was a very un-heated exchange in Manchester when police deliberately dragged protesters down alleys for walking on the pavement instead of the road, kettled people and then charged them with horses when they remained in the road.

I've dealt with traffic cops a lot and they are a mixed bunch, some very sound, some obviously enjoy their job. Cops on student protests however are obviously briefed to be very harsh and if anything instigate violence.

In reply to Paul F:






Lol! They can't win. They get slagged for being clueless, but on the other hand if they'd plugged a couple of the Anarchists under the guise of fearing for the future Kings life, then what would the reaction have been? You're spot on, lots of RP Officers in other countries would have opened fire.

In reply to nastyned:

"When I see a worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on"

And when that worker is a policeman in conflict with an unemployed swampy/EDL/Thug/thief(delete as applicable)

Whose side are you on then?

I'm sure Orwell can supply you with another quote perhaps one that didn't relate to Fascism in 1930's Spain would be more appropriate.

In reply to JSA:
and me, yeh.


At best it was a massive error in planning. At worst it was a set up, not even carried out by protesters to make students look bad.

In reply to The New NickB:

In a shop today I was 'served' by an oik who seemed completely unaware of the existence of the words 'please' and 'thank you' and tried to short change me. This does not make me believe that all retail staff are ignorant, ill-mannered thieves. Similarly I'm not going to damn all coppers because of the bad behaviour of the few. I've generally found them to be much like the rest of us, including being apt to get a bit brusque in stressful situations like demos. At times like that they need to get a job done and don't have 20 minutes to debate the finer points of crowd control with individuals.
Where large groups of demonstrators and police clash it is inevitable that the police will operate a one-size-fits-all tactic, just as protesters fall into saying all coppers are thugs. If you are at the front of a mob shouting and bawling at them don't be surprised if they get a bit robust once the bricks and bottles start flying. The expect anything else is naive in the extreme.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

"Cops on student protests however are obviously briefed to be very harsh and if anything instigate violence. "

Regardless of what you might think - that is simply not true.

In reply to off-duty:

oright 'zero tolerance'. And whilst it may only be a few 'bad apples', it's the 'good apples' supporting the 'bad apples' that i think is the issue.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
them don't be surprised if they get a bit robust once the bricks and bottles start flying. The expect anything else is naive in the extreme.






Absolutely! Its common sense really. If a bobby racks his baton and gives me an order to 'get back' then I would be very foolish not to, and would deserve all I got. Simple really.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Which is a slightly different attitude to your original post :-
"I can honestly say that they're a bunch of provocative tw*ts."

In reply to off-duty:

That is collectively what they become. If you have a group of a thousand batoned up people, 5-10% who love violence and the rest who back them up, then you get a massive fight. Simple really.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

so what your saying is that police asked the protectors to do something which they refused to do yet the police are at fault?haha what planet do you live on?if you break the law you pay the consequence.anyone who isn't doing as instructed by the police technically are braking the law(within reason obviously) and the police have a right to uphold the law.
Let's get the watercannons out and see how badly don't to the students were before

In reply to Franco Cookson:



A lot of speculation in your posts. " I can almost guarantee!" Bit of an armchair jokey there.

Pop yourself into the middle of a protest/riot, see how calm it all is, on both sides, what with the abuse, the taunting, the constant moving, the threats of violence, the ACTUAL violence, disorientation, see how you like it.

Do you know just how difficult it can be to try and calm down people in that situation? I certainly do, and it is one of the hardest things I've ever done and spectacularly failed at.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

"If you have a group of a thousand batoned up people, 5-10% who love violence and the rest who back them up, then you get a massive fight. Simple really."

But enough about the students - what was the point you were trying to make about the police?

In reply to Franco Cookson:






You really have a lot to learn about life skills...

In reply to The New NickB:

I've been in a few riots, and marginally on the wrong side of the law in this country and abroad, and I can't see how the cops here could be any softer or fairer. I do think they could be more effective if they toughened up a bit.

As a student, I thought I was better and cleverer than the police, then I grew up as most of the tw*ts on the marches will do, and realise how much of a tough and difficult job it is.

In reply to gingerkate:


Do we have a prize for the best UKC quote of 2010?


E

In reply to Franco Cookson:



You've got a lot to learn about life sunshine.

In reply to beastofackworth:


If students were carried into vans i'd have no problem with it. But at the moment you have students breaking the law (going where they are told not to go) and the retaliation is ridiculous. What was a disabled person doing that was so bad he needed dragging out of his wheel chair and across the street? He wasn't even arrested was he? So can't have been that bad.

I agree that there are people (some students) on these marches which encourage police into acting violently, but I have personal experience of this round of protests and the police are acting differently to other marches, such as the anti war marches which I've been on.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

1)Some students were carried into vans. It is utterly impractical to arrest all of them in a public order situation.
2)Jody McIntyre is a subject of another thread.
3)I have personal experience of policing numerous marches and protests both peaceful and less so.
As nearly always is the case the main protagonists are not those responsible for the trouble - it is a combination of the professional protestor and the local scrote that wants to fight the police.

Generally one-off marches pass off fairly if not wholly trouble free - the problem usually comes when demonstrations escalate either nationally or locally over a period of days, so that all the usual suspects know that on X time on X date there will be a mass of people in a certain area.

The police will be prepared for trouble, there will be an ample supply of naive idiots to hide behind/inflame and there will be a sufficient mix of anarchists/professional protestors/scrotes attracted to the escalating situation to provide a trigger for it to kick off.

In reply to off-duty:
>scrotes attracted to the escalating situation


The police?

In reply to Franco Cookson:

You're not doing yourself any favours here.

In reply to Franco Cookson: you have so far changed from students not doing anything,to ok some students may be provoking the police so I'm wondering if eventually your going to change your mind further to most are provoking the police.
Personally I think that allowing these protests is wasting money in policing that could be spent better elsewhere.the law is now been changed,tuition fees are going up-get over it as there's nothing you can do about it!

In reply to Removed User:

Or any other thread he's posted on to be honest !

I saw an Orange March in the summer. It was slightly inconvenient for me on foot and I expect the car drivers were much more annoyed but I thought that was trivial compared to their rights of free assembly, movement and expression. I saw two women watching and giving the thumbs down to express their disapproval. The marchers marched, those who disapproved made that clear and the Police pretty much just had to control the traffic.
I thought that was a very good day for democracy and policing.
Non-violent protest, noise, shouting and traffic jams are not threats - they're part of democracy and should be policed as such.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
You are StudentBob and I collect my fiver!!!

In reply to The New NickB:

They're a bunch of human beings, like any group, some are ok, some aren't. I count 2 or 3 as personal friends; at the other end, I've met a few who I would lable racist thugs. What else would you expect from a large group of people?

In reply to Tiberius:

...all the police women I know on the other hand are ace fun

...thanks for the heads up from one of the police men that I count as friends

In reply to elsewhere:

Totally agree - and have policed many peaceful demonstrations just as you describe.

Generally what they have in common is a planned route that is more or less adhered to (or at least an organiser with whom we can liaise to ensure the march is facilitated), a time scale that is roughly adhered to (again - roughly) and some kind of purpose - ie "we are going from a to b where we will make some speeches, then we want to go to C"

Sometimes this involves compromise both from the police and the demonstrators.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Wahaha !

In reply to The New NickB:

Good post Nick.


'Us and Them' tribalism, and is a common reaction on here to any criticism of the uniformed services. I get fed up with people who are automatically and militantly anti police on principle, but I get even more fed up with people who seem to think the police are above critical discussion and close ranks. Defensive behaviour makes me suspicious that there is soemthing to hide...



Pretty much the same as you. Tough job, vital service to society, most of my experiences with the police have been positive (and all on the right side of the law), and it is easy to forget that in the UK the police and public have a far friendlier relationship than anywhere in mainland Europe. I have known a few real bullet-brain pig-ignorant thugs, but that doesn't mean they are all like that. Most I've met, including a couple of mates, are sound, take doing their job seriously and actually give a toss about making society a better place.

In reply to Naedanger:

Who'd have thought a "sense of humour" would be so revealing

In reply to Franco Cookson:

The view of a free lance journalist re McIntyre:

http://www.mitchell-images.com/#/jody-mcintyre/4546538655


I'm just wondering, did your other marches involve peaceful actions such as this:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ead_1292023263

In reply to The New NickB: Policing by consent eh? the lefty liberals have made a mockery of what people can and can't do these days and people should go to Easterm Europe etc. and see some proper policing and prisons where you know you wouldn't want to step out of line or face the consequences.
If oyu are in the middle of a riotous protest you get whats coming to you, or you huddle up in a corner or you group together and sort out all the idiots that are causing the trouble.
The police deal with scum day in and day out which is bound to make the most angelic of people want to beat the hell out folk now and again.
If you were asked "do you want us to take the guy who mugged your granny to the courts or fill him in" well the answer is fill em in because the justice system and prisons are no good whatsoever.

My only criticism is they shouldn't be allowed to retire at 50. Desk job till 65.

In reply to Ian Black, and Denni.

Your patronising replies undermine your argument quite successfully. Franco has made an extremely pertinent and academically-recognised point that is indeed wholly relevant to both the police as well as the protestors.

I suggest you read up on well known experiments such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment. Police and protestors alike are equally susceptible to the effects of this deviant socialisation. To quote Wikipedia:

"The results of the experiment are said to support situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed the situation caused the participants' behavior, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities."

So yes, Franco's theory that police become violent in such a situation, as it becomes socially acceptable is completely possible. Whether or not that is suitable, forced and necessary behaviour is a completely different argument.

In reply to The New NickB:

Never had much of a problem with them, including being arrested for some fisticuffs in Manchester many years ago. They do a crap, thankless job under a lot of provocation, and get the blame for our bizarre justice system. I've met some unpleasant, slovenly, useless ones who shouldn't be out in public, but that applies to teachers and nurses too.

As Dominion has said, I generally find that getting my face two inches from someone else's and spraying a load of spit and obscenities at them doesn't end well.

In reply to yer maw:

Police offices can retire at 50 if they have served their 30 yrs, otherwise it is retirement at 55yrs. This is after paying 11% of their wages for 30 yrs into a final salary scheme. (the highest contribution of any public servant)

Officers joining after 2006 pay 8% for 35 yrs on a new reduced final salary scheme.

The total pensions bill for the Police is 3% of the public sector pensions bill.

Most officers now are being forced to retire after 30 yrs by their forces (regulation A19) to save money under the imposed cuts.

In reply to swhitinguk:

Hi mate,
don't need to read up on any literature thanks, have witnessed and been involved in plenty of "peaceful" protests so know first hand what it is all about. Yes you are right, I was patronising, not a good quality I will admit.

Also, just because someone comes up with a statement to rationalise behaviour, doesn't neccessarily mean it is true does it? It doesn't take the brain of a genius to realise that behaviour changes depending on the situation.

As for wikipedia, thats the problem these days. People are spoon fed information, believe it and just because the majority of people agree with it, doesn't make it correct. Original thought seems to be lost on a lot of people these days.

In reply to The New NickB:
I think they are good. My favorite is the message in a bottle.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Oh the irony !

In reply to Ridge:

Wot Ridge said, though the blind and uncritical closing of ranks under outside criticism isn't one of their endearing traits. It would probably help us all if they got more training on how social media works, but you could also say the same thing about their political masters. Neither of them seems to have "got" the internet yet, and sometimes it shows.

I think they're a necessary evil.

In reply to The New NickB:

I've been booked for speeding and arrested for something else once. When I have been booked or arrested by the police their conduct has been exemplary. That said, I've never resisted arrest. I've been stopped and questioned a few times, again the police have been courteous and I've given them no reason to up the ante. I've been burgled twice and had my car stolen once. Again they were courteous, I got my car back, but nothing from my house burglary was ever recovered (I didn't expect it to). Once, in the 27 years since I left school, have I come across a policeman who was out to provoke a response (which came to nothing) and that's despite attending crowded gigs, demonstrations and the like.

On the whole, I think they do a good job, are generally good people, doing the job for the right reason and we're a society better off for having them. There are some that let the side down occasionally, but it would be wrong to base opinion of the police on the whole based on the actions of a few.

In reply to off-duty:
It's nice if the protest is well organised etc, but the rights to free movement, assembly and speech apply to spontaneous and disorganised events too. We don't need permission for a daily commute, a Bank Holiday trip to the seaside or Christmas shopping. These things may generate a crowd and a traffic jam. Protest is just as legal. The rights to free movement, assembly and speech don't require permission.
Compromise is desirable, but regular, routine or prolonged kettling is a denial of the rights to free movement and is a compromise too far. Sustained denial of rights provokes violence, you can see that across the world.

I find it interesting that there are no formal qualification requirements to be a police officer!! I know they have their own in house tests but surely a good grounding in maths, english and science would be of benefit.
Might mean we get a few brighter bobbies that have common sense. Find it weird that we promote education so much but you don't need it for professions like a policeman.

In reply to The New NickB:

I grew up next to a copper... class A dick. A fat, lazy, quite dim fascist who I argued with about the Rodney King case when I was about 11.. so my initial introduction to the police force wasn't good.

Since then things has generally improved... most have been polite and well meaning and have dealt with me in a fair and just manner.

However... a few years ago I was on a May Day march (the fun, not voilent ones not the anarchist led ones) and the Met police tried the infamous kettling technique but didn't have it inplace in time... quite understandably most of tried to leg it through the totally incomplete police line and one policeman tried to wack me with his stick and 'almost' succeeded.

There was no signs of violence and it was still a pleasant march that may have held up some cars... I was next to a woman in a flowery dress with her pram and a guy dressed up as a corporate clown on a unicycle!! There actions were totally uncalled for. I found any police man I talked to on the day was fairly unpleasant not sure whether the Met police are particularly bad or whether they purposely put the arrogant ones on protest duty

So everyday police generally good people doing a not easy job.... Met police controlling peaceful demo's bunch of angry yobs (who were probably getting time and a half ast least so not sure why they were angry!

In reply to Ian Black: can't believe I'm defending Franco but.... your attitude is pretty pathetic too.

In reply to The New NickB:
To the OP;

What struck me about your post was how similar the police as a body are to the acute sector of the NHS (this is the bit I am familar with, so I'll only comment on this bit!). People don't comment when things go well; this is the expected standard, so comment isn't seen as required. But when one or two individuals let the side down, then the criticism, though possibly deserved, is often disproportionate to the original problem. Similarly, although the general public expect exemplary "customer service" and are encouraged to see themselves as "customers", the behaviour one would normally expect from a "customer" can be poor and we cannot censure the "customer for" What I'm trying to get as is probably best expressed as a theoretical example; if you come into my sweetie shop and behave badly, I can censure you by banning you etc from the shop. However, when it comes to the Police, education, NHS etc we cannot stop serving you. It can be r4eally frustrating when, knowing this, the so-called "customers" then take advantage and deliberatley abuse/provoke etc the services they expect to be on hand whenever they demand. It's terribly frustrating.

Back to the op; the few bad ones tend to show up the whole of the force, and it's really hard sometimes to keep things in perspective, especially in the light of a personal experience that has been negative, for example.

Sxdx

In reply to The New NickB: Always remember that copper caught doing 150mph on the m54 and getting away with (not on blues and not responding) his excuse was I'm trained to drive at speeds, as a non police response driver, I don't think theyd let me off!

In reply to JIMBO:

I got in a little trouble when I younger and one of the two coppers involved was a nice bloke (the other one was the type that give them a bad name). The nice one said to me something along the lines of 'the only reason I'm in this job is because I didn't get enough grades to do anything else, you're a young intelligent lad with your whole life ahead of you, make sure you make use of the opportunities that gives you'.

The other one said 'try and run away and I'll break your legs' which with me at age 13 and in my school uniform and him 6 foot plus and with a truncheon must have made him feel really tough.

In reply to The New NickB:

I like the police. Not a fan of stings solo work though

In reply to The New NickB:
Compared with most overseas forces, the police here operate to far higher standrads. try talking to Poles about their police force or the yanks about theirs.The fact that only a few carry firearms in th euk and most do not want to , bears testimony to this.Problem is thta if you get into trouble with the police, you naturally think they are wrong and idiots.Look at the water cannon issue, we do not use it in this country. Yet in almost all other countries it's widely used.

In reply to The New NickB:

I think they're for the most part a decent bunch. I think some of them haven't exactly covered themselves in glory during the protests but as off-duty says that's a subject for other threads.

I've had a few dealings with them and they've always been very prompt and courteous. In our last flat we had a couple of attempted break ins, someone used our flat as a drug drop off and had more than our fair share of psychos wandering in to the courtyard. Each incident was taken seriously and we felt reassured that the police were looking out for us.

Got to the point that I even considered joining Northern Constabulary myself!

In reply to Toby S:

Did they actually solve the crimes and stop them from happening again?

In reply to niggle:

Most of them yep, one chap got lifted and charged with criminal damage and the investigation in regards to the drugs is still ongoing. I think they're trying to trace it back to some bigger fish.

In reply to Toby S:

Pretty impressive. Score one for the good guys!

In reply to The New NickB:
Many people's perceptions of the police have been understandably skewed by the fact that historically they have been (mis)used by government in this country for repressive purposes. That distracts from the valuable work they do in so many other ways.
I've always felt that the police get lumbered with so much of the dirty work in our society. They have to deal with things I hope I will never have to see in my lifetime and clean up the resulting mess, and I have every sympathy with them as a result.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Most true. But then it goes back to argument about are those in the army guilty of war crimes in the middle east, or are they just doing what they're ordered to do. You don't have to follow orders after all..

In reply to KTT:

The same as they will....feck all.

In reply to off-duty:


agreed. but i do have to say that most of the coppers i've met have been a bit snide and patronising; perhaps that's a result of trying to 'be in control' from the start.
What really gets me though [and this *is* a pretty minor point ]...i've found a few bags recently, quite obviously from muggings/snatches/pub-sneaks; i was grilled like i'd nicked them and not thanked. one time i was looking for a bag that someone nicked off me & that was dismissed as irrelevant. The undercover cops i asked were pleasant and treated me like an adult, though.

Generally the police force atracts exactly who you'd expect it to attract.

It's a well paid job with early retirement and a colossal pension, which requires no qualifications or previous experience and which grants the employee a huge amount of authority over the general public and the freedom to occasionally use a great deal of physical force.

So yes, in amongst the normal, decent people you will get stupid, violent and power-hungry people. That seems pretty obvious.

In reply to off-duty:

come on, how do you think that comes across? i think it was probably just a quick post, but that's sterotyping and possibly symptomatic of what's wrong with some officers.
I've no wish for the EDL to be treated to tea and biscuits, but even they have the right to be at least superficially treated as innocent before being proved guilty.

In reply to The New NickB: Despite having on the other threads, reported some issues I had in the past with certain police forces taking inappropriate action against strikers and demonstrators, I would not like to be classed as anti police. I think most of them do a difficult job well under trying circumstances.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Agreed, but you'd avoid that shop again and/or check your change very carefully next time...there are a couple of shops round here that 'routinely' try & pull a fast one.

If you are at the front of a mob shouting and bawling at them don't be surprised if they get a bit robust once the bricks and bottles start flying. The expect anything else is naive in the extreme.

Robust is one thing, but the people at the front aren't the ones lobbing stuff, they're further back. And a protest is going to be full of people with things to say, stridently . The cops are obviously caught in the middle and have to understand that the initial anger and frustration is not directed at them. Swearing, while unpleasant, is just words and IMHO, not something to be arrested for.

In reply to thin bob: ...and no, i don't like being shouted and sworn at either! and it does happen a lot in certain tasks i perform....

In reply to trevor simpson:


again, agreed...but then, a bit of allowance for youthful tw@ttishness, maybe? it's not like they're 30 year old 'professional and experienced' thugs.

In reply to rampantchopper:

Unless you are exempt by law, probably not.
There always seems to be an assumption that there is "one law for the public and one law for the police" but it is covered in just the one law as defined by the Road traffic Act.
Exercising the exemption is roughly described as 'speeding for a police purpose' and I personally know of officers who have been prosecuted for speeding (in a police vehicle) had their advanced driving permits withdrawn, or sent for re-training, (or a combination of all three) where they could not justify their speed. All police vehicles are fitted with a downloadable 'black box'and/or video equipment so can be checked at any time.
Blue lights/sirens are only to warn other road users of an emergency vehicle on the road and are not a legal requirement of using the speed exemption.

Emergency Service Exemptions

Speed

By virtue of Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by Section 19 Road Safety Act 2006),

(1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when–

(a) it is being used for fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for Ambulance purposes or for Police or Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,
(b) it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c) it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used on that occasion.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply unless the vehicle is being driven by a person who-
(a) has satisfactorily completed a course of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed provided in accordance with regulations under this section, or
(b) is driving the vehicle as part of such a course.

In reply to The New NickB: I'm only posting so that Off-Duty doesn't think that all climbers are rabid anti-police types.
All of my dealings with the Police have been pretty positive. Once arrested (got caught with a tiny bit of hash) where the police went through the motions of cautioning me. I got the feeling they would have rather confistcated it and sent me on my way. It certainly took a lot of their time to process a stoned teenager. They were polite and even gave me a couple of ciggies whilst I was waiting.
Last year my wife was harassed by an ex-colleague who turned out to be a psyco. The police were great. They treated it very seriously and sensitively. At the time my wife was terrified, expecting to be attacked. The nut-case ex colleague was pulled into the police station twice and the harassment (so far) has stopped.
So, I think like many people my attitude to the police is that I rarely think about them as I'm lucky enough not to need them. When I have needed them they've been great.

In reply to The New NickB:

As in any organisation some police are good some are bad.

As a lad I was interviewed by the police for several hours after a lady was assaulted and left severely brain damaged on the Coast to Coast. No they didn't think I had done it- I was just able to provide a lot of evidence as I could remember everyone we'd met and we'd got to know the lady. Dear me I wonder what happened to her- left in a persistent vegetative state, worked as a speech therapist, attacked near Richmond.

The officers concerned were I am sure very efficient. I was even offered lots of "smokes" though I don't smoke. I was however struck by their thuggish nature and that perhaps "it takes a crook to catch a crook"

In reply to The New NickB: i think .whats the alternative ? answers on a university postcard..

In reply to sypmc:


So there is one law but the police are mostly exempt from it?

How is that not "one law for the public and one law for the police"?

In reply to niggle:

The alternative is for emergency vehicles (include mountain rescue teams) to only travel as fast as traffic conditions dictate. I would be happy to drive as dictated by legislation if the public do not want the emergency services to exceed the speed limit.

In reply to The New NickB: I've generally got a lot of respect for the police and whenever I've had to deal with them I've been impressed at how professional and efficient they are.

BUT I think that the recent student protests (and a lot of previous sets of protests) have been handled very badly - not because of individual police doing bad things, but because the tactics and organization seem to be aimed at provoking trouble and making protestor's lives dangerous and unpleasant. I feel pretty sorry for the police who signed up to stop old ladies getting mugged and have been dumped into the middle of all this, to be honest.

In reply to Sarah G:

NHS is full of ignorant lazy choppers. And teaching. That I'm afraid, is U.K. citizens people. Never been shouted out by a (not drunk) patient or relative and I've seen it happen often - in every case the numpty deserved it (not the language but the tone).

Regards

D

In reply to :
Some interesting points raised.

JIMBO – seems to think that the police are thick and unqualified. Most officers I work with are graduates (not that this says a lot nowadays!!) The police is one of the few jobs I have done where an applied degree in common sense was a requirement – it is getting less so as discretion is slowly eroded but what other job could you be expected to go from dealing with a live armed robbery to negotiating between two 40 year old drunken children.

ELSEWHERE: - “The rights to free movement, assembly and speech don’t require permission” – unfortunately the police are placed in the middle ground where the right of person to freely move and assemble is infringed by the desire of person B to march along crowded streets or commuter routes. Given that 50,000 students were involved in the latest protest ( only 10% of the total number of students) and 7 and half million people live in central London – whose rights take precedence?

Kettling and the “sustained denial of rights” as you put it – only occurs when a compromise has failed. Is your alternative to allow the voice of the few to take precedence over the lives of the many? What if those few have a view you actually disagree with – let’s use the EDL as an example- would you be happy for an un- policed EDL demo to march through a largely Asian area?

DIRK DIDLER: - Shocking as it may be I spend my day to day life investigating, arresting and charging people with offences like burglary and assault.

RAMPANTCHOPPER: - The copper (incidentally trained to advanced driver standard – several levels above response) that drove too fast and was identified and arrested by the police, charged by the CPS and acquitted by the District Judge following a trial – becomes the police's fault?

THIN BOB: Perhaps I should have highlighted the words "unemployed" and "worker" to illustrate the point I was trying to make in response to nastyned's quote.

In reply to off-duty:

well defended so far

defend this action ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5JMY9LNv0M&feature=autofb

are these meant to be elite - the best of the best ?

Inspectors lead by example - no wonder the ranks abuse the power vested in them if the boss turns a blind eye.

In reply to off-duty:

Constables are not graduates, but I would hope that detectives are.
I just find it weird that a job that requires (in my mind) a good deal of fast thinking and intelligence has no required qualifications. Why have an education system pushing kids and measuring schools by national qualifications if they are not recognised/used by national bodies such as the police?
Plus most bobbies that I have met have been rather slow and less than courteous despite my compliance and impeccable manners... my experience by obviously there are good clever ones out there somewhere.

In reply to JIMBO:


I worked with an ex copper who is now a PhD. She is also the best pool player I've ever met. She said she had to learn as it was the only acceptable recreation in the mess room. Reading a book or non red top paper was seen as a sign of weakness and would result in lots of hassle

In reply to off-duty:
>whose rights take precedence?
The protestors. The inconvenience of a bit of disruption once in a while is negligible compared to the daily inconveniences of commuting. Anyway a protestor is a legitmate road user like anybody else.

>Is your alternative to allow the voice of the few to take precedence over the lives of the many?
Yes - the alternative to express only a majority approved view or dictatorship of the majority.

Free speech definitely applies to those I don't agree with including the EDL. The freedoms of others do not require my approval.

>– let’s use the EDL as an example- would you be happy for an un- policed EDL demo to march through a largely Asian area?
Why un-policed? That would be mad.
Would much prefer it through a city centre rather than a residential area.

In reply to niggle:

Fantastically, if the media's watching

In reply to Ian McNeill:

It's called common assault. Whenever they choose not to become involved - not one of their own / helps massage down violent crime figures.

Regards

D

In reply to Ian Black:

It's not simple at all Ian. The ability to bash someone over the head isn't equal to the right to do so. You might be 'foolish not to', but if you are doing nothing wrong and are exercising your legal right to protest, then the police are in the wrong not the protester.

More generally, the police have a problem in that because it is their role to in effect pass judgement on what is right and wrong, when they do 'wrong' in some way, the level of hypocrisy seems so much higher hence more anger at police hitting students, than bankers who took risks with money they didn't have and helped damage the economy in the first place. Add to this that the police have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a democracy with the rule of law, you just increase the expectation of near perfection in behaviour from the policed (i.e. everyone else). And unsurprisingly they don't get to that level.

In reply to off-duty:

Chill out old bean,i,m glad you are arresting people because over the last few years i,ve had quite a few expensive items stolen and never had anything back nor anybody questioned,charged etc,the last one was a £3500 m t bike when i reported it i was told that it was,nt serious enough for them to warrant looking into,after a some what heated phone call i was told that they would pop round..when they arrived i was informed that they would look into it as it was considered a high value theft but that it was 99% certain that i would'nt be getting it back, after a few weeks i was informed over the phone that sorry we can't waste anymore time looking for it,when i asked where and when they had looked i was told oh sorry we dont actually look its just if we see someone with it,and you wonder why even those who abid by the law can sometimes lose patience with the police,GET OUT OF THE CARS AND OFF YOUR FAT ARSES.

In reply to The New NickB:

As I've said before, I have the utmost respect for the average plod I see in the street.

When it comes to the containment of protests, kettling, the actions of SO19 and the TSG I tend to think they're scum - if I saw one of the above laying bloody in the street I'd be hard pushed not to put my boot in as well.

In reply to The New NickB:
I think that the police should not confront any protesters but just contain them, as they did last week. Then I would put snipers on the rooftops and shoot anyone causing damage that the taxpayer had to pay for. The amunition could be either bullets, rubber bullets or fluorescent paint balls. All of the damage causers I saw on TV were easy to spot.

As a non-violent/non-damage causer I would feel quite safe.

In reply to Dirk Didler:
How many police would you use, for how long and where would you send them to look for your bike?

In reply to Dirk Didler:

I had exactly the same experience, but I live on a boundary between policing areas. I recived a phone call to say 'we've found your bike and have it for you'. I put the phone down and recieved a phone call about five minutes later from another copper saying 'I'm sorry, we haven't found your bike and we're not looking for it anymore'. When I explained I'd had another phone call from another copper, it turned out he knew nothing about the case at all.

Then I went to collect the badly smashed bike which I'd paid about £200 for and they wanted £120 to get it out of the compound. I explained I couldn't afford it and it had been stolen and they explained that it was police policy.

A great experience ey.

In reply to The New NickB:

It's easy isn't it to jump on an anti police band waggon when referring to riots or other large scale public order incidents. Yes, there will be some police officers who are there to provoke a fight. But then some of the students / anarchists were hardly blameless.

However once you've finished bashing the riot police, and you have an accident in your car, you get your house broken into, you loose your dog, wallet, child, or you are involved in almost anything that you yourself or society in general finds difficult to handle. Who is it you call???

Oh yes, that will be the common or garden copper whose job it is to provide a solution to everyone else's crisis!!!!!

In reply to Franco Cookson: Blimey, how outrageous of them not to inform every single copper in your area about the exceptionally important Curious Case of Franco Cookson's Stolen Bike. What on earth are they doing all day eh?

Get real.

In reply to YosemitePaul:


yeah but as others have mentioned. You call them but the probability of them turning up is pretty slim.

In reply to David Martin:

Most of those dealing with the protests were 'average plod', as has been pointed out repeatedly on these threads. So, the officer you're tempted to kick as he lies bleeding on the street had your utmost respect the previous day.

I suppose it may make you feel better able to justify your moral position if you can delusionally label the police you're kicking as a different breed from the neighbourhood officers you profess to respect, but you should really be more honest with yourself.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Franco, I am sorry to hear that. The only circumstances that I can think of where a bike would end up in a compound is if that bike was a motor bike - in which case your insurance should cover it. Was that the case or was it a pedal bike?

In reply to elsewhere:

So you are happy for demonstrations to be policed but they should be entitled to go wherever they want for as long as they want, regardless of how big they are or what cause they support.
Is that a reasonable summary of your position?

In reply to off-duty:

It was a motorbike, third party, so doesn't cover theft.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

More sensibly, You'd expect the person phoning to update you of the situation to know the situation themselves.

In reply to The New NickB:
When their only visible presence is sneaking around street corners with lazer guns or hidden in layby's with cameras, they become (understandably) disliked in general. Add to this the odd bit of footage of them rolling a disabled person out of a wheelchair, or charging protesters on horseback and the picture is complete for a lot of people.
I know a fair few police officers socially and they're all nice guys, it's important to separate the individual from the police as a body, the individual is not necessarily in favour of government policy. Aggressive policing of political protest has never been popular and is seldom without confrontation. People rapidly forget any good that the police do following such scenes. What do I think about them? I'm fine about them, but I don't want to meet them in their line of duty.

In reply to dissonance:

Is there any reason why you can't go to the police station and report it yourself?

In reply to JIMBO:


Just so you know it's one rank - constable. Some Police Constables are graduates and some Detective Constables are graduates. Some are not. The role has no qualification requirements (beyond a basic level) because a broad section of the community are desired: From the just left school 18 year old to the change of career service man/woman, or man/woman who has raised a family and decided on a career in public service.

You are not necessarily going to get a better service because someone is a graduate, or not. I'd suggest that that is down to the character of the individual and whether they are suited to the individual role that they are placed in within the service. Indeed, it may even depend on how they feel on that day, because as, human beings, even police officers have off days.

In reply to toad/Jimbo:
I would say a majority of constables are graduates.
There is a move to convert the initial training of the police into credits towards some sort of degree something I have mixed feelings about.
Additionally there are moves to make prospective candidates complete a degree or similar course prior to applying to the police. I have major reservations about this. Common sense and a wide variety of life experience is what I think provides a good police service, rather than just a graduate degree.

As for an ability to play pool, where I work - no-one has time to eat let alone play pool on response. I have seen a variety of magazines and papers left lying around in rooms and offices,with titles somewhat similar to what you might expect when the majority of those working on response are mid to late twenties.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:


i could waste my time just as effectively in that fashion, yes.
I was thinking of them doing something semi useful occasionally about a crime rather than just obviously sticking it down in the files and ignoring it.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

When one has a mobile telephone that makes one exempt from attending a police station! In any case if one lives in the metropolis the local policing team are probably on the bones of their arse with so many members having been cancelled to work a protest or sick having been injured at one.

In reply to dissonance: /but my point is, why should they come to you? Your objection is that they won't come to your home, but why on earth should they? What exactly do you think they can do when, say, someone steals your bicycle or kicks in your car window?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

I know what you mean, but surely forces should have a bulletin or email etc system? it's not like crims only stick to thir own borough!

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Well that's a bummer. But perhaps your anger should be directed at the tow truck company that impose the charge. I have had numerous discussions/arguments with them over the phone and am reliably informed that their police contracts barely allow them to break even.

Or should the tax payer shoulder the payment for recovering, transporting and storing your uninsured bike?

In reply to off-duty: I'd hazard a guess you'll get the response "yes cos I pay my taxes, it's not fair for me to pay for anything" here! )

In reply to dissonance:

I am clearly wasting my time at work, investigating, detecting arresting, and processing suspects for exactly those offences.
Perhaps you might want to direct your ire at a system which rightly or wrongly rarely considers property crime as worthy of a custodial sentence, resulting in the usual suspects committing numerous offences (that they are convicted for) prior to any custodial sentence.
Strangely those sentences often correlate with a drop in that individuals crime of choice in the surrounding area.

In reply to off-duty:


might be in your area but i know where i live the investigation i, or anyone else i know, has had is "heres the crime number" normally accompanied by an air of extreme disinterest. Overall it comes across as that the local cops find this sort of thing beneath them. This is reflected by the somewhat low crimes solved stats in the area.

As such there isnt the "good side" seen to the work the police do and just the bad eg the comment complaint about not catching burglars but be able to hang around with speed cameras. I dont particularly agree with that particular example but as a generality it isnt to far off.

In reply to dissonance: Earlier this year while visiting Edinburgh for work, I was sat dutifully not entering a yellow box junction when someone drove into the back of the hire car I had. After a moment recovering from the unexpected shock, I signalled to the other driver to pull over into an adjacent street away from the traffic. The other driver then drove off.

A charitable passer-by noticed what had happened and took the number of the car as it left the scene. I then spent a little while on the phone and visiting a police station to report what had happened, pass on the details of the ne'er-do-well who had hopped it, got an incident number for the insurance (it was something like the 750th incident that day and not yet 7 pm) and left, not expecting to hear anything further.

So imagine my surprise when the following Saturday an officer rang to say they'd tracked down the offender; well done to them. As it was a hire car I don't know what the final outcome was, but with lots of things to do it's to their credit that they found the time to give this some attention.

OK, it may be a minor story in a Big Bad World where delicate students get pushed around by large men with short tempers and better things to do, but it's positive reflection on them in a world where the naysayers bray loudest.

T.

In reply to off-duty:

Pretty much a fair summary of my position.

Those who demonstrate and those in the area are entitled to the best possible police protection against crime just like anybody else.
The cause is largely irrelevant, people are definitely free to have opinions offensive to others. Otherwise you'd have to ban most strict or orthodox strands of the major religions for homophobia or sexism. And you'd have to ban anti-homphobia and anti-sexism as offensive to some religious adherents.
I support some limits, like you couldn't dress up regular stalking or daily harrasment as a demo.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


Aside from the evidence supports the naysayers with regards to the number of crimes solved.

In reply to gingerkate:
i tend to agree, but try and tell that to the children of the battle of the beanfield etc..

In reply to off-duty:
not doubting your experience, ...but there was an article a couple of weeks ago about police receiving 'finders fees' from recovery firms (police as a whole, not individual officers IIRC)

In reply to Baz47:

I fully understand the limitations of police resources and time but it would be nice if they could at least look,the bike was stolen by a notorious thieving clan..i found out about it later and when i spoke to the local cop he confirmed that what i had found out was most certainly true but that unless they where found on the bike there hands where tied,yes i know you cant just get a warrant and go, but i like most people get to the point where i think what is it that they do,this is the problem as i see it,that if certain crimes are not really worth investigating then i cant be expected to fully back the police when they need me to.

In reply to elsewhere:

Perhaps you could tell me how much money you are prepared to spend and how you intend policing the following:
An EDL protest that would like to go through a predominantly asian area of a northern town, on a route that according to you they don't even need to disclose, let alone provide a date or duration for.
A UAF counter demo that would like to go to exactly the same place.
The shop keepers that would like to be able to keep their shops open that weekend.

Oh I'd like to carry out a sit down protest in the middle of Oxford street as well - to protest about banking or something. There are ten of us and we intend to block the road for about 24 hours.

In reply to dissonance:


A simplistic view that relies on the assumption that all crime is solvable. There are many cases where the odds are stacked in the favour of the offender, ie very determined, organised individual (look at the killers of Rhys Jones who were forensically aware and cleansed themselves to remove all material evidence linking them to the murder); very careless or very vulnerable victims (think the numbers of burglaries where the victims leave their front doors unlocked over night); where omerta is the common practice and no one will assist the police in an investigation.

Arguably the public should focus on crime prevention as opposed to a reliance on the police to solve all crime, because that is not all that the police are responsible for, albeit it is a major function of the role.

With future budget restraints on all public services I suggest it will be even harder to deliver the high standard of services that the public demand: We should all start revising our expectations downwards.

In reply to sypmc: I believe that blue lights are required for exemptions. Although in the incident mentioned the excuse used was that he wished to develop his high speed driving skills. Although to do this he should have booked a training slot, which he had not. I know this is probably an isolated incident, but the amount of times I've been over taken by police vehicles whislt driving at the speed limits are to many to mention

In reply to off-duty:
10 people on Oxford Street - easy - tell them to keep on the pavement and leave them to it if that's what happens.

EDL - much, much more difficult - relocate to a "neutral area", probably the city centre. Huge police operation required.

In reply to scoot:


and the percentage of criminals who are this way (admittedly probably going up with the number of forensic crime shows)? Obviously some will be switched on enough but all? you are right though about it being stacked in favour since going back to the earlier point forensics are irrelevant most of the time with the cops not turning out even is (as i think is acknowledged by everyone) the likelihood is a few halfwits are responsible for most of the burglaries etc and hence doing an occasional heavy forensics check on some random burglaries would get rid of a lot more.


Most people do however that results in a lower perception of the cops when people see the police extremely high profile in activities seen as less useful to the average person. Take our hypothetical student if they have been burgled (fairly likely considering what good target student houses often are) and had zero response after being kettled for several hours on a peaceful protest they aint going to be overly sympathetic to the cops.
The excuse of there will always be a few bad apples and hence all shouldnt be judged by that standard will go across particularly badly considering the police approach to protests being the exact opposite.


considering the number of crimes solved dropped by 10% last year as the crime rate fell and resources rose it doesnt seem quite so simple.

In reply to MHutch:

Perfectly easy to do. A police officer involved in kettling, in the instances I have seen at least, has my contempt. It is a completely different set of circumstances from the activities they are normally involved in and of which I largely approve.

Similarly, SO19 or the TSG by my understanding are a different beast to those police we normally engage with.

In reply to dissonance:

Could you point to a source for those figures please? Not disputing it, just want a look at them.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


its the crime statistics survey, example story here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10645702

In reply to elsewhere:

Wait a minute. You are asking for compromise by the protestors. What happened to our right to protest freely wherever and whenever we want to?
It's only minor inconvenience - just like being stuck in a traffic jam on the way to work.
Fascist!

In reply to David Martin:

When you are trampling with your bloody boots on the body of one of my dog handler colleagues, will you be kicking his dog as well?
They are probably the most visible evidence of officers performing multiple roles in normal policing and in riot control.

In reply to off-duty:
Life is full of compromises, terrible isn't it.
Anyway if Christams shoppers have a right to be on the pavement of Oxford Street so do protestors.

In reply to elsewhere:

"Life is full of compromises, terrible isn't it.
Anyway if Christams shoppers have a right to be on the pavement of Oxford Street so do protestors."

You can't have it both ways:

"Protest is just as legal. The rights to free movement, assembly and speech don't require permission.

>whose rights take precedence?
The protestors. The inconvenience of a bit of disruption once in a while is negligible compared to the daily inconveniences of commuting. Anyway a protestor is a legitmate road user like anybody else."

Yet you are now advocating that the protestors comply with police instructions - stay on the pavements, stay in a neutral area.

In reply to rampantchopper:

There is no requirement in law for blue lights, it's normally advisable but not essential. If an officer was travelling to a suicidal person on a motorway bridge would he use lights and sirens? Possibly not. Like most things in policing it comes down to the individual officers judgement.
The incident you refer to was an officer who had received a new vehicle he had not driven before and was not familiar with. He knew at some time he would be required to drive this vehicle at speed. He took the car on a test run and drove it at speeds he may have to drive at, so he knew the vehicles capability. He switched on the on board camera and informed his control room of what he was doing.
When he informed a colleague later, about what he had done, the colleague made a complaint to professional standards, who then went through the process of taking him to court. At no time did he deceive anyone of his actions and fully recorded his reasoning behind it. He was aquited at court, as the court found his explanation (not excuse) lawful.

In reply to dissonance:
"the likelihood is a few halfwits are responsible for most of the burglaries etc and hence doing an occasional heavy forensics check on some random burglaries would get rid of a lot more."

I venture to guess that I have spoken to more burglars than you. Half-wits some may be - but they are most certainly forensically aware. It is a lot steeper learning curve when you are banged up for a fingerprint hit than picking up forensic science in your cosy living room watching CSI.

There is currently on the BCS figures a 13% detection rate for burglary dwellings down I think 0.7%

Without wanting to suggest the BBC is in any way biased the BCS figures show - yes 10% fewer crimes were detected in 2010, however the key figure - the detection RATE fell by a WHOPPING - 0.6%.

What sort of detection rate would you be satisfied with - given that the police/CPS have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that even little Jimmy clutching your recently stolen X-box is the burglar and didn't just buy it from some man in the pub/ find it on the ground as he was walking past/ get handed it by some bloke he is too scared to name.

Incidentally I take it that you would refuse to accept that the police might have any part in the headline of your linked article "Crime in England and Wales at a 29 year low" - given that crime prevention is alos a role of the police.

"Most people do however that results in a lower perception of the cops when people see the police extremely high profile in activities seen as less useful to the average person."

Shocking isn't it that your perception of the police is guided by the media.

In reply to dissonance:


Agreed, but there is an expression in the media: "lies, damned lies and crime statistics"

One interpretation is that the police, despite growing numbers, are less competent at detecting crimes.

A second is that the recorded crime has fallen and we are left with a higher proportion of 'unsolvable' crime.

In reply to off-duty:

Wait a sec.. are you implying that CSI isn't real??? Damn you!


I think the mainstream media are broadly supportive of the police, the Beeb certainly seem to be.

In reply to scoot:

Or interpretation 3 as above - The BBC have misrepresented the figures

In reply to dissonance:

Ta for the link, and that does show that as you say, in England and Wales crime rates are falling. It doesn't show that resources rose but a further search provided evidence that police numbers are at a high level.

But simple it isn't, and the obvious conclusion that if there's less crime and good numbers of officers, but that the rate at which crimes solved is falling faster than the crime rate is falling then there must but laziness, incompetence or other systemic failures isn't necessarily a valid one. It could be argued from the same figures that the police have been spending more time on crime prevention than solving crime and that senior officers in the police need to rebalance where their officers spend their time. It could be that there's a problem with the CPS, or that changes in the law have changed the balance of prosecutions in some areas in favour of the defendent and that crimes go officially unsolved as a consequence.

There's a bigger picture here that simple numbers don't paint. I don't have the necessary experience or insight to say which factors are important or what the correct interpretation is, but I doubt that it's the tabloid headline version as the system is way too complex for such a simple outcome to hold. Been interesting to look through the reports though and thanks for supplying the link to get me going.

But not interesting enough to make me delay my tea any further...

T.

In reply to Toby S & Off Duty:

I'd prefer to exercise caution when interpreting crime figures!

In reply to off-duty:


cant stand that shit myself and yeah i would say you would have met more. The few i knew who drifted into that life from the more, ermmm, challenged end of the school i was at hence my lack of faith in their skills.
Although since we are discussing the burglars again from the if i was a that way inclined in these parts i prob wouldnt bother being forensically aware on the grounds of the low likelihood of the cops turning up.


i think you are putting words into my mouth there. However since we can both take that approach i take it you would refuse to accept that while probably effective its somewhat irritating to the average person to read those signs saying "car crime hide everything or lose it" and that that is the sort of thing that again makes people wonder what purpose the cops are serving as opposed to cheaper PCSOs etc for crime prevention.



again putting words into my mouth where exactly did i mention the media? I give you again the example of the various traffic cops and the standard complaints against them. I tend to be somewhat less in agreement with that position that most but it is one of those that does affect the perception of the police and make people "anti-police" as you like to put it
Although since we are mentioning the media the piss poor performance of the met around the phone accessing by papers is curious. Wonder if they will take the same approach with the anonymous eejits.

In reply to scoot:


that would be an interesting one to claim. You also have the third, supported by some other surveys (although since those are based on perception highly challengable) that part of the crime rate drop are reassignment of crime types and also people simply not bothering to report crimes any more due to lack of faith.

In reply to off-duty:
I would advocate that people comply with *reasonable* police instructions.
Protestors should comply with reasonable police instructions like:
"the 10 of you will fit on the pavement so stay on the pavement".
I do not regard an instruction "you can't protest on Oxford Street" as reasonable.
A protestor has just as much right to be on Oxford street as anybody else.

You're reading me far too literally if you think I mean that one person's rights take absolute precedence over somebody else's. However the balance should be massively tilted in favour of messy democracy over inconvenience.

In reply to dissonance:

Crime prevention measures put in place by police include some but not all of:-
Offender management units policing recently released convicted criminals and working with other agenices to try and uensure they tunr away from crime.
CCTV systems in urban areas.
Design out crime partnerships with local authorities to make areas more inaccessible to criminals.
Liaison with Youth offending teams to try to redirect young offenders at a very early stage in the process.
Working with local area neighbourhood nuisance and anti social behaviour teams to cut down low level offending/anti social behaviour.
High visibility policing in identified problem areas.

and plenty more if I spent some time thinking about it.

Re the so called "piss poor performance of the met" in the phone hacking allegation - you are aware that all those parties that were making the claims that the hacking went further and deeper than theMmet had investigated were all invited to produce their evidence, allegations or even suggestions - and ALL went "NO COMMENT".

Zenyatta Mondatta was a sterling piece of work!

In reply to dissonance:

Why don't you read the actual report.

Crime is down.
Strangely(!) therefore the TOTAL number of detections is down - the 10% trumpeted about.
The detection RATE is also down - by 0.6%.

Now it's a long time since I have done stats but perhaps someone can tell me if that is even a statistically significant amount?

In reply to elsewhere:
"I would advocate that people comply with *reasonable* police instructions.

I do not regard an instruction "you can't protest on Oxford Street" as reasonable.
A protestor has just as much right to be on Oxford street as anybody else.

You're reading me far too literally if you think I mean that one person's rights take absolute precedence over somebody else's. However the balance should be massively tilted in favour of messy democracy over inconvenience."

You are happy for the EDL and UAF demos to be moved to a conveniently neutral zone without infringing anybodies "rights"

How about an amorphous undetermined protest - which judging by the increasing disorder in the preceding protests is likely to degenerate into disorder - which you are also aware is increasingly likely if not definitely going to be hijacked by various groups anarchists/ professional protestors and local scrotes for their own ends.
Still happy for that to pretty much go where it wants and when it wants?
Oh and an indeterminate number of people so you had better put EVERYBODY on standby.

In reply to dissonance:


Dwelling burglary is probably a poor example to choose for as the likelihood is that the majority of police services would allocate officers to attend and investigate this type of offence. Theft of motor vehicle or pedal cycle, beyond house to house enquiries is there any value in an officer attending to give the victim the crime reference number? i suppose whether officers do or not would be reflected in victim satisfaction surveys - I don't know.


How do you measure that irritation? Why are they irritating? Maybe PCSO's are the answer, but i think police reform is worthy of another thread.


This is an example of a complex investigation that requires more than a quick chat with BT to get all of the answers. My mind boggles at how you would gain access to such sensitive phone records (ie of politicians and royals) without multiple layers of red tape and ranking officers. After that we come up against the familiar burden of proof problems in proving an offender made the calls.

Anonymous Eejits - circulate photographs from CCTV footage or photographic evidence. Sit back and wait for the generous public to assist...

In reply to off-duty:

I'd rather the rights of the EDL & UAF weren't constrained at all but I recognise it might be necessary to avoid violence.


People are just as entitled to make an amorphous protest as any other *legal* activity, what specific law are they breaking?

In reply to The New NickB: Thick as f*ck but thats no reason not to liek them or give them our support.

In reply to The New NickB:



Most of the threads focus on public disorder / confrontations,and how bad the police are.I am sure that most police officers would rather not be there and doing ther normal duties.

Some posters think that the police are made up soley of riot squads,what about the officers who investigate

Child abuse
Domestic violence
Vulnerable abuse
Abusive images
Traffic cops who attend fatal / serious accidents
ETC

Do they do a cr@p job

In reply to Big Jonnie: yes. The police handling of Leeds Uniteds visit to Burnley was very well recieved by Leeds fans. They thought the police did a great job.

In reply to yer maw: My only criticism is they shouldn't be allowed to retire at 50

Depending on when they joined,it can be as young as 48 yrs.

In reply to Big Jonnie:

Just caught this post before posting one of very similar sentiment (sorry, gingerkate!)

When I've worked on murders (I'm a civilian, not an officer), they can lose any semblance of a social and/or family life during the first few days until leads are solidified, offenders caught or something similar. There's a real variety of jobs which 'the police' do and while it's easy to point the finger at some poor public examples, there are thousands more doing a very professional, difficult job often to the detriment of their own family lives

In reply to The New NickB:

Funnily enough I rather like the Police.

Yes, on a occasion we fall below the expected standard, but the vast majority of old bill are decent, hardworking, dedicated people. By that I mean not only warranted officers but also the many civilian staff who work just as hard as us coppers.

There are UKC members who have valid reasons for a distrust of the police and on occasion they post their reasons, these tend to be presented in a measured and reasonable manner.

There are also UKC members who dislike the police and do not seem to be able to articulate their dislike of plod in anything other than the basest of terms.

I started the other thread of which you write, as I have stated on that thread I did it because I am aware of other old bill using this site and wished to share my feelings. I also made an ill judged comment about the "anti-brigade", i regret this comment as it diminished what I wished to convey from my initial post.

We do a difficult job, in fact sometimes its f*cking horrible but then again so do many other professions, I do not envy for one minute the task of paramedics, nor having been in the presence of burned bodies do I have any desire to be a firefighter.

I have no problem with anyone who wishes to engage in considered discussion about the pros and cons of the standard of policing, there is always the possibility that they may effect my attitude in a positive manner or I theirs.

I strongly object, however, to the "I hate the f*cking pigs and nothing you say is ever going to change that" approach to these discussions.

Col

In reply to off-duty:

Yeah, I guess so. Afterall, on Brick Lane last night I had a white Labrador sniffing around my ankles and watched as two plain clothes officers went up and down the street for a good half hour nailing people, I presume, for possession - at least every time the wee mutt sat down next to some punter walking his way up the street. Great stuff.

Next time CO19 put a bullet in the back of the head of someone walking down the street with a table leg, will you be supporting them when they threaten to down tools if found guilty of an unlawful killing?

I have witnessed police getting out of control, here and abroad. The average copper, going about his business is in my mind "not out of control" and I will happily step in and support him. Unfortunately I also see the opposite, more so recently, and based on what I see feel a pretty strong gag reflex when I hear the police bleating about how hard done by they are. All the more so when the Tories are only too happy to climb on board.

In reply to Arcticboy: Nicely put. I do just wish all police could be so reasonable, I have several reasons for distrust, being pulled over 3 times in 1 hour and getting a rather patronising telling off for showing my frustrations the third time (not abusively), bring told "we are only doing are jobs, ironic as that is what I was trying to do. Or being tailgated for 1/2 a mile at night with flashing headlights finally to realise it was a police vehicle when I entered a lit area, my fault for not stopping, why didn't he use blue lights as I obviously could not tell who was behind me, thought it was a loon! And finally my friend losing his licence for a matter that could have been delt with by discretion.

Having said that there was an occasion where I cut a police car up on an island, I explained to the officer that it was not intentional, that I was both tired and sorry and that I was simply on my way home which was just down the road after a weeks hard winter climbing. Fair enough he said, just don't do it again.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

>the state had to pay for the damage

That's you and me and anyone who pays taxes, or has a student loan, for example. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...



Actually, given that it was a protest about student fees, and Charles and Camilla have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with government policy, and David Cameron's position as Prime Minister, what it meant was that some morons who wanted to cause damage for the sake of it and for no real reason caused some damage for no real reason and attacked people who are not in the slightest bit involved in what they were supposedly protesting about.

That's another shot in their own feet.

However, they do seem to be fairly inept, so I suspect that if they ever do take a shot at their feet in real life, they'd miss completely, and hit an innocent bystander, and then claim a victory...

In reply to swhitinguk:






Certainly not patronising, and yes I am aware of such experiments. However what one has to remember is human beings(police or protesters) in the heat of battle can suffer from sudden impulsive temporary loss of control. This is what can happen when the adrenal cocktail kicks in.

In reply to rampantchopper: I don't think any of those things are reasons to distrust the police. They are reasons why you have been a bit inconvenienced, but not reasons to distrust. As for your mate's licence, let's get this straight, he lost his licence for something that should have been overlooked? I look forward to this story!

In reply to Ian Black:

That happens to the bad cops who are temperamentally unsuited.

Most of the time the police are OK. The police attitude to civil liberties, treatment of photographers and dealing with contentious protests are massive exceptions to my general opinion of the police.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains: Didn't want to bore to much with details of story, but basically it goes like this. Went to get together at pub with friends. After lemonade was convinced to have one beer with meal as his girlfriend said she was happy to drive, he then returned to soft drinks. Upon leaving the car park was imediatly pulled over. Unknown to him, and despite her saying otherwise her insurance did not cover her to drive his car. Both were breathalised, both clear. He was given six points for allowing her to drive his vehicle without insurance, new driver+6points= 0 licence.

Now me being a decent person in this circumstance, would have said, look, you have made a mistake, I can see it was an innocent one, so instead of taking your licence away from you which you require for your business and causing you many sleepless nights and stress, I'm gonna use common sense and clarify this issue for you so that it does not happen again.

But hey, maybe I'm being a bit harsh, the poor copper has to justify his evenings "work"

In reply to rampantchopper: Why is that a discretion thing? Where is the room for discretion? You're either driving a car you are insured for or not. It's an unfortunate story, but one I bet they hear time and time again. It's nothing to do with jusdtifying his evening's work, if they start letting people off, there's no point having a law and people who uphold it. I know this sounds harsh, but if your reason for distrusting the police is for correctly applying the law....

In reply to rampantchopper: Unfortunate for your mate, but better than the other way that people find out that they aren't covered by insurance - ie when they clout into another motorist.

Not sure I agree with discretion for uninsured motorists, but hey ho, each to their own...

In reply to rampantchopper:

I think that is down to the current system which dictates that every 'crime' must be recorded if it's an easy tick in the box, as the system is target driven. In the 80's, (when coppers seemed to be a lot bigger and baton happy than they are today), discretion was used far more, which resulted in a lot more respect for the coppers. Now you can expect to be ticketed for the most trivial offence.

Again, it's blaming individual plod for systematic failings. The vast majority of coppers would love to put away the relatively small number of scrotes who make everyone else's life a misery and give people like your mate a warning, but they're hampered by the current legal system.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains and scoot:

Disagree. They were pulled over the minute they left the carpark, it appears to be a genuine mistake rather than deliberately uninsured, both tested negative, so simply telling them to swap places and sending them on their way with a warning, and flagging the reg up in case of future occurences would have been a far better solution.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains: two of my favourite quotes spring to mind; rules are the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men, there is nothing common about sense

In reply to Ridge: Absolutly agree, know it sounds like I'm having a rant, have met many coppers socially and professionally, have respect the majority of fbm and the work they do, but don't think I'm being unfair saying there are some power hungry over zealous and patronising idiots out there, but would like to think it's a vast vast minority. And coppers are not helped by a system that makes it very easy to punish a responsible citizen with so much to lose for a simple error and so hard to adequately deal with the many less desirables in society. So they have my sympathy there.

In reply to rampantchopper:

I kinda feel sorry for the bloke - he was deceived by a girl who didn't know her insurance policy. Should SHE not have gotten the points and should he have been given a caution. It doesn't sound premeditated to me - sounds like he was trying to be safe and comply with the law, not break it.

In reply to off-duty:
Abusing public property http://on.fb.me/eTyy0H

In reply to Ridge: No one is denying it was a genuine mistake, but it is still breaking the law.

In this instance, it is the law that could be interpreted as harsh, not the police decision to uphold it. People often seem to conflate these two things.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
On the other hand, check out this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7247429.stm

That situation did not arise overnight, there was a deliberate policy of turning a blind eye to the situation. Certainly not a decision made by individual officers out on the streets, a decision made by someone high in the structures.

So it really is not a case of, the law says this, the individual police officer must uphold it. It's a case of the authorities disregard the law when they believe that is the best thing to do.

I feel it is very short-sighted to apply laws unequally.

In reply to off-duty: In reply to off-duty:

well defended so far

defend this action ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5JMY9LNv0M&feature=autofb

are these meant to be elite - the best of the best ?

Inspectors lead by example - no wonder the ranks abuse the power vested in them if the boss turns a blind eye.

I notice you haven't replied .....

In reply to Naedanger:
Bloody hell that just makes me so angry!
That's just outrageous. And the smug looks on their faces, and the refusal to accept his complaint.
Fuming.

We regularly use the phrase 'bad apple', but so often people forget the rest of the phrase. One bad apple can spoil the whole barrel. Rottenness spreads. Rottenness infects. We really need to deal with the bad apples in the police force, we really need to stop the rot.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Go to any reasonably large town centre tonight, probably more than 60% of people on the streets after 10 p.m. could be probably be charged with being drunk and disorderly/ criminal damage / threatening behaviour. The licencee of every single pub will be guilty of serving intoxicated people. Will they arrest several hundred people, or exercise discretion and concentrate on the worst offenders?

In reply to Ridge: Fair enough, but I just find it odd that people caught breaking the law seem to think it shouldn't apply to them, because essentially they are feeling sorry for themselves for getting caught.

In reply to The New NickB:
Generally OK if left unprovoked
Some likelihood of self selection for less than the ideal personality type
Often world wearied by their work experiences
Some have a tendency to be much less professional than they are in theory expected to be
Can find themselves doing a very difficult and unenviable job

In reply to Naedanger: Did that officer get charged with assult in the end? Surely with that video he should have got punished? Although I have a feeling it may have got forgotten about or ignored.

In reply to Ridge:

It's not discretion though is it? The whole country is expected to turn a blind eye to drunken mayhem and violence every weekend - not just the Police.

Regards

D

In reply to off-duty:
Crime prevention measures put in place by police include some but not all of:-
INCLUDE SOME BUT NOT ALL OF?? I guessing that's not what you meant? (I'd be (i think) happier if it included them all.
Also, hows...
"Offender management units policing recently released convicted criminals and working with other agenices to try and uensure they tunr away from crime."
Working out for ya?
"Design out crime partnerships with local authorities to make areas more inaccessible to criminals",
Do you mean ASBO's? FFS! They're a badge of honour!
I give you this as an example..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12017367

This wanker, aged 17,had walked free 24 hours earlier. He was free on 6 bail orders! He had previously defied 19 court orders.

I reckon he came under the..
"Liaison with Youth offending teams to try to redirect young offenders at a very early stage in the process"

What a crock of shit!

P
p.s. for what it's worth I do realise that this reflects the law and NOT the police. But when you come on here spouting.."liaison", "high visibility", "design out partnership.. whateverthef*cking phrase was, IT MAKES MY (and everyone elses) BLOOD BOIL)

In reply to The New NickB: I really liked all the albumsvup to Zenyatta Mondatta

In reply to Naedanger:

I imagine he/she hasn't replied because he/she is at work dealing with the usual mountain of work!

Why should off-duty defend the actions of the officer in that video? I don't know what job you do but if one of your colleagues assaulted someone I wouldn't expect you to defend them. There are 30000 of us in the Met do you expect me to know what the other 29999 are up to all the time?

I do not know the background to the video or how what happened came about, do you?

I always find it amusing when people use the actions of one officer as evidence for the behaviour of the rest of the service. If I was to judge, let's say, the Somali diaspora in this country by the actions of one individual i'd be accused of prejudice, isn't what you're doing the same?

Col.

In reply to Naedanger:

Ever heard of editing?

I agree the policeman is seen to strike the protester and on the face of it is guilty as hell.
However, how much content has been removed? The protester definately seems to say all the right words at the right times - almost scripted. Are we actually seeing the whole story? Has it been edited to favour the protesters view?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

CSI

In reply to gingerkate:

I am not clear what point you are trying to make with your link about Bradford and uninsured drivers.
Are you suggesting that senior officers have directed police not to target uninsured drivers in that particular area?
Why - and have you any evidence to support that view?

In reply to Padraig:


Yes what I meant was the "measures in place include the following (as well as others that I can't think off the top of my head)"

The spelling and the previous error can be put down to typing too fast and not re-reading what I had written.

Hopefully my meaning wasn't too garbled!


No. Designing out crime partnerships (or whatever the local jargon is for them) set up installing simple stuff like alley gates for example.

As a side note I remember the introduction of ASBO's. They were bloody brilliant. Where anti-social scum were disrupting a neighbourhood yet no-one would testify against them, officers and other council officers could attend and present hearsay evidence at a civil court and obtain an ASBO. The conditions could be fairly stringent and breaching them became a criminal matter.
They may well be overused now - I tend not to deal with that level of crime professionally at the moment. They do provide a means of attempting to regulate low level poor behaviour which the police can then prosecute in a criminal court.
The problem as usual is when the consequences of breaching them is not enforced by a court.


No. He might have come under the offender management unit. In Daily Mail terms they provide a carrot by lining up jobs and treatment programs for prolific offenders to try and stop them offending, with the stick of regular bail checks, drug treatment orders and kicking their doors in with extreme prejudice if they are suspected of committing crime or relapsing to their previous ways. In my experience this is a largely fruitless exercise in rehabilitation but has the bonus that the closely monitored offenders are thrown back inside at the faintest sniff of recidivism.


The youth offending teams tend to get involved at young ages with low level criminality in a desperate effort to try and redirect the 12 year old shop lifter with chaotic home life from becoming the 19 year old blagger or the 17 year old prolific robber.


The persistent bail infringements? Yes.
The defied court orders? Yes.
Your understanding of the role of the police in crime prevention?...


What is funny about your post is
1)that it has got me trying to point out the strengths in policies that I generally have as little to do with as possible - not my style of policing really.
2)That you assume that the liberals of the UKC will echo your views on the police efforts to prevent crime and turn offenders away from crime rather than just lock up baddies
3)That on the one hand I am being accused of being nothing more than a fascist bully boy of the TSG yet here you are accusing me of being a lily-livered liberal apologist for criminals.

PS - I can't find any link to the offenders previous convictions - but as you rightly pointed out - prolific breaches of bail and court conditions should really be laid at the feet of the magistrates or the legal system, rather than with the police who have repeatedly arrested and charged him.

In reply to Naedanger:

"defend this action"

Why?

It's different officers, doing a different job in a different city.
Looking at the footage I can see various levels of muppetry going on by various of the protagonists.
I have some sympathy for Brian Haw's views in general but I am not convinced that I would like to be trapped next to him at a party.
I enjoy Mark Thomas's programmes as well. Don't always agree with him - but it's always quite funny when you see the number of cops he comes across that appear to be sympathetic at least to his views.

TSG - best of the best? I have never called them that. Quite handy in certain situations but I don't know if I would want them investigating my murder

Not sure if I agree with the conclusion regarding Inspectors either.

Perhaps you could provide a bit more context - I was able to establish that Haw was arrested for a public order offence (rather than the allegation detailed in the video), but I couldn't find out whether he was charged?
Did he make a complaint?
What happened with that complaint?

Incidentally naedanger - since you have taken the time to post on this thread perhaps you would share your thoughts on the two officers stabbed the other day in London?

In reply to Arcticboy:

Nights - over black Friday and the rest of the worst weekend of the year.
If only people realised quite how thin the blue line was....

In reply to off-duty:
Not senior officers specifically, not alone, the powers-that-be, politicians and their invisible counterparts. I can't prove it, but the alternative.... that somehow the police weren't aware that they had this growing problem... seems extraordinarily unlikely. Plus I have had direct experience of a situation where an order came down from the powers, and changed what the police were planning on doing, so I know it happens.

It would be fairly silly if it didn't actually, someone needs to be in charge and look at the bigger picture. I just don't always agree with their decisions.

Oh sorry, I've just glanced back and see you've asked 'why'. I'm assuming it's that the authorities don't want to create more extremists. This is reasonable, but there are big (and obvious) problems with applying the law unequally to different communities.

In reply to off-duty:

You'll be sent on a diversity awareness course for such blatant racism ;0)

It's called 'Mad Friday' elsewhere. When all the businesses knock off work and go for a drink or three.

In reply to gingerkate:

After the racial tensions in Bradford (post 2001 riots) it would be a brave senior officer willing to tackle a problem that could seriously damage his ascent up the greasy promotion pole.

In reply to Paul F:
I would be very interested to know who takes these major policy decisions. I don't think it's likely that it's senior police alone. I imagine it's senior police plus politicians plus MI5 plus people I don't even know about....???

Another one... kettling.... who is taking the decision to kettle protestors? It's a new one on me, I've been on plenty of demonstrations and sit ins ... all very peaceful... and I've never been kettled. So it seems to be a new policy, (and a very silly one), but whose baby is it? And also... much easier to answer, this question.... which country did we get the idea from?

In reply to gingerkate: I don't know where kettling came from but I first saw a version of it at Stop the City in about 1984

In reply to Mike Highbury:

It's been used at just about every football match since time immemorial.

In reply to off-duty:
That inspector who shoved Brian Haw in the face is a scumbag bully and should be condemned as such. I take it you don't think it matters much if somebody shoves a police officer in the face either?

Are you so reluctant to condemn the idiot (since charged) who swung off the cenotaph flags? Do you excuse his behaviour with "context" too?

You mention the horrendous stabbing of two officers this week? Do you excuse the behaviour of the guy (also since charged) with context of maybe the officers aren't very good at parties or are muppets in some way?

How can the police expect respect and confidence with such refusal to clearly condemn bad apples?

In reply to off-duty:

A few years ago I was told by a met sergeant that officers at his station (Cricklewood) had been told not to bother booking Eastern Europeans for traffic offences, since they tended to 'disappear' before turning up for producers or at court and the average Met bobby couldn't spell their names correctly anyway. Of course, there wouldn't be any 'evidence' of this directive, your average inspector is a little bit smarter than to direct his sergeants and constables to overlook the law on paper or email.

In reply to Arcticboy:


I suspect she was being rhetorical and might have been hoping for a condemnation rather than defence.


No although the officer standing next to him in the video would have known what he was up to and the senior officer who he was complaining to seemed to be acting ridiculously in refusing to do anything considering the numbers of cameras pointing at him.


I think that is a slight over simplification, it isn't really the actions of individual officers that people judge, but the inaction of the system in response to him. Take for example this video - how different would have the response been if the senior officer had rather than wondering off, taken out his notebook and formally recorded the complaint of Haw against the officer who hit him? Or if the officer who injured Haw was seen to be removed from policing that protest? That's why the story outlined above about the officer let off the speeding offence was actually positive, in that it was a police colleague who seems to have thought the actions were not right and started the complaint process.

In reply to teflonpete:

Did you hear (the true story) about the Irish Gardaí who were looking for one Polish man who had been booked for a huge number of motoring offences and was never turning up in court to answer the charges. All was revealed when a Polish speaking civilian saw the police 'wanted' poster and noticed that the man being sought had the interesting name that translated directly into English read "Driving Licence"!

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, well even that can get a bit ridiculous

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-12023388

In reply to gingerkate:

it will be the senior officer for the district, probably superintendent/chief Super. that decides on the Policing plan and where the resources are to be deployed.
The Home office has insisted on a focus on neighbourhood policing and under labour, the police had to meet 'confidence and satisfaction targets', so resources are moved accordingly.
A police force has finite resources and a senior officer will police according to what pays him his target bonus. So if not upsetting a particular group nets you, personally, a few thousand pounds per anum what would you do?
There are lots of people who criticise the police for speed enforcement, but if you go to my village community meeting it's all complaints to the police about speeding cars and dog poo. (I look forward to elected police commissioners to see what their priorities would be based on this !)

In regard to 'Kettling' I don't believe this is an official police term, I don't know where the term came from, the tactic is containment. The police have to (under the HRA) facilitate lawful protest. There are hundreds of protests and demo's that take place every year and are without incident.
In Europe the police wouldn't think of getting hands on with a protest and will use CS, baton rounds and water cannon to keep crowds back and disperse them.
The police in the UK (with the exception of NI) have to develop a tactic of containing any violence, other wise Millbank is a good example of what happens if the Police don't.
The police are in a no win from the start, if they put too many out (or in full riot gear) they are seen to be heavy handed. If they put too few out they risk serious disorder.

In reply to Paul F:
Drawing up the policing plan is the responsibility of an officer but this shows how the force or whatever is to achieve home office and police authority targets.
Targets that have been abolished
Many chief constables have wisely decided not to take their 15%
That is scarcely taking account of all of the community's needs and desires. The Labour government that you so deride sought to extend consultation to the 'hard to reach' but the professionals were less keen and killed it off. Local politicians (police authorities and local partnerships) are at the mercy of the professionals here. Fortunately not all policing priorities are set at village halls, otherwise sexual offences and domestic violence would never be addressed.
So what? It's that it happens that is of issue here.
It's not what goes on in Gaza but what is approved by the Home Office that matters here
There was a super series of television programmes about the police recently. One dealt with public order and vividly illustrated different approaches to similar incidents and how these had markedly different outcomes.

In reply to The New NickB:

I'm going to ignore the rest of the thread - many passionate views on both sides which will not be reconciled in a forum thread - and comment on the OP.

My own view is that there are *some* police officers who do not act as they should, much as there are in any area of life. Due to the nature of the work this can have a disproportionate effect on those they deal with, tarnishing the way the rest of the officers are seen.

My own experience of the police has been entirely positive. I've been pulled by traffic a couple of times, for going quite fast on my motorbike. Each time the officers were polite, checked the bike and my paperwork, gave me a courteous bollocking and let me on my way. The reason for not reporting me was that they were able to see that, whilst I was speeding, my observation, road position etc was very good.

I was also arrested when caught exploring a derelict ship, dealt with in an entirely professional manner. Once they had checked us out, and ensured we hadn't nicked anything, we were released and returned to our car. All very amicable. They were a little bemused as to why we were doing it, but quite friendly.

Also, after a burglary, an officer came (after soco had been) and was most helpful and friendly.

This is my only experience of the police, and I appreciate that it is not representative of everyone, it is a good experience.

I wouldn't wish harm on anyone, certainly not someone who was just trying to go about their work. I hope the injured officers recover fully and quickly.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I did have a detailed reply in mind, but in short,
Targets still exist (and bonuses are not just for Chiefs) The HMIC work on targets, it is how forces are ranked.
The speed example was in a reply in context to a post above, if i was to include all things i would be typing all day.
Derided labour, how? I stated they introduced a policy neighbourhood policing. Didn't they?
'So what' with 'kettling' it is the limited tactical options with UK policing (compared to Europe) that leads to the tactic being used at all. I'm interested in your solution?
You've seen it on telly…..?

In reply to The New NickB:
in my own view, policing nasty people requires police with a tough attitude. Unfortnately this tough attitude too often comes out when it is not necessary or even remotely appropriate....too often police are just thugs in uniforms.

In reply to Paul F:
If you are not interested in what non-police officers think, then stay off a climbing site.
You referred to confidence and satisfaction targets specifically and they have been abolished. Other targets, which I also referred to, have not; but don't doubt that they are under review.
You chose to focus on it, I then commented.
Yes, of course. But if you wanted to talk about policing policy, then you would speak on the home office and government.
Yeh man, it's my window on the world. I illustrated an alternative approach to policing demonstrations, perhaps you also saw the programme. It was made by the same chap who did the expose of racism in a northern police force, so he's obviously utterly unreliable. Only the UKC bores require peer review.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Do you have a link to the programme so that we could see what those alternative approaches are?

For what it's worth I have worked a fair few peaceful protests and they tend to go pretty smoothly unless someone tries to push things too far - typically trying to rush the doors of a building or smash some property.

incidentally water cannon and baton rounds are home office approved not sure about tear gas though.

In reply to TobyA:

Exactly. No one expects the police force to be pillock-free, and most of us are actually very aware that even very good people can have moments where they do the wrong thing. What makes the blood boil is systemic failure.

In reply to elsewhere:

Exactly.

In reply to off-duty:

You must be the only officer that I have spoken to that hasn't seen it. TV must be a Met thing


The Home Secretary disagrees about water cannons, fool that she is: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101213/debtext/101213-0001.htm. Tear gas has been used in riot control in England, Liverpool comes to mind.

In reply to Paul F:
Kettling is no solution if what you want is for protests to proceed peacefully. If you get a group of peaceful protestors and kettle them for hours, some will become violent, because being trapped for hours makes people extremely bad-tempered.

As this is completely obvious, as kettling is being used with such idiocy, I'm beginning to wonder if there's a deliberate policy of escalation.

In reply to off-duty:

"incidentally water cannon and baton rounds are home office approved not sure about tear gas though".

Replace Police horses with elephants. They're bigger and come fitted with water cannon.

In reply to off-duty:
Here you go. EDL and UAF posture in Bolton town centre: www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers (public order)

In reply to off-duty:
How can the you personally expect respect and public confidence if you're not prepared to say something like "there's nothing on that Brian Haw video that would justify him having his camera shoved into his face so on the basis of the video and in the absence of some implausible other circumstances that officer should be investigated for assault"?
Would you support the public treating police officers or FIT camera crews in the same way? If so, why not?

In reply to elsewhere:



Wishful thinking.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I stand corrected about water cannon - I never realised that they hadn't even been home office approved - I am aware they are used in NI.

Still not clear about the alternative tactics you are proposing. The Coppers programme followed the police as they policed two angry groups of protestors on their way to a demo in Bolton that degenerated into violence.

Cops started in a low key mode but then ended up getting fully kitted up and going in fairly hard.
For what its worth what I think the programme showed was that the use of the Public Order Act to arrest people in violent demos is probably overused.

In reply to elsewhere:
Exactly (again).

In reply to elsewhere:

The officer that shoved Brian Haw the second time pushing his camera into his face looked like he used excessive or misdirected force. I suspect he may have been able to justify it within the remit of public order policing and use of force, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I was glad he moved back or his two colleagues moved between him and Haw to either prevent escalation or keep him out of the way.

It's a pity the Inspector didn't come across better on the camera - he did offer hospital treatment to Haw, it would have been better if he had taken some details but I can accept it is impractical in the middle of a demo, whilst running a serial of 20 or so cops, to be taking people to one side and taking out his notebook to get some details to call him back about his complaint.

That is why I asked if there was any information about Haw being charged - which I doubt he was.
It's also why i asked if anyone knew if he had made a complaint.
To go on from that - any idea whether there was any disciplinary procedure taken against the officer - the incident was broadcast on TV - so I imagine there probably was. In my experience of televised incidents involving cops there usually is at the least a Professional standards investigation.


Its an old chestnut but police officers are there for crowd control and to move people to or from different places. Quite oftee that can be done by simply walking along the side of a march chatting. Sometimes that requires the use of force.
It's not the pushing and shoving that the protestor shoving over a police officer would have to account for - its the lawfulness and/or justification of his actions.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
If it was 'Coppers" on 4 showing the EDL and UAF demos, there was nothing new there. I think the limits of the written word are showing on this, you are taking my comments as adversarial when I'm trying to be factual ;0)

In reply to elsewhere:

As an addition: -

"How can the you personally expect respect and public confidence "

I, personally, expect and receive public confidence when I am dealing with the families of murder victims, reassuring the victims of violent crime and persecuting and prosecuting the bastards that made them victims or that prey on the decent people in society.

In reply to gingerkate:

Kate, the 'kettling' in the student demo in Westminster was put on some one and a half hours after the trouble started.
It was a consequence not a cause.

In reply to off-duty:
But you do see, don't you, that one can't possibly justify such an action as necessary for public order or anything similar, because the action was to the detriment of public order?

ie Do stuff like that and you are escalating tensions, not controlling them.

In reply to The New NickB: of the police? they do my head in, the wife keeps playing that bloody cd.

ps That last is in reply to off-duty's comments re officer who shoved camera into protestor's face.

In reply to Paul F:
It is not a good policy. Not if you want peaceful demonstrations.

In reply to gingerkate:

the only time I have seen it used on peaceful Demos is by the MET when dealing with thousands of people attending a demo to be policed by a few hundred police. I think after the G20 they were reluctant to use it at Millbank, which was the first big demo post G20. They got the balance wrong on both occasions IMO.

If a demo gets taken over by an element out to cause trouble what other option is open to the police as a tactic?

In reply to gingerkate: Kate, kettling is not a policy. It is one of many tactical options available.

In reply to Paul F:
Use all the surveillance measures at your disposal to identify the problematic element... who will always, on a normal demo, be quite a small minority ... and split them off. Almost the opposite of kettling, splitting the crowd, not bottling them all up together. And do the splitting sooner rather than later. Even before they've misbehaved, when they are visibly out for trouble, which some of them are.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
There's been a change in policy that means the tactic of kettling is being used.

In reply to gingerkate:

Even that tactic has it's opponents.
You will have to Google 'fit watch' as it won't let me post a link as the filter read it as containing tw*t

In reply to gingerkate: Not sure what that means. Are you saying there is a policy saying "in public order situations, the police will kettle"?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
I'm saying thatin the past (dim, distant) I've been on a lot of demos, and I've been on quite a few peaceful-but-not-entirely-legal protests.... getting in the way of lovely arms traders who were selling arms to Indonesia for example ... and the police have never done anything that could be considered to escalate tensions. Never done anything like kettling. And now, every other demo you hear about, there's kettling going on. So someone somewhere has taken a decision to do that. And I think that if they want demos to be peaceful... it is a mistaken tactic.

In reply to gingerkate: Why do you say someone somewhere has taken that decision? A perfectly reasonable alternative view is that each time they think there will be a demo, they assess how they think it will go, and sometimes they kettle, sometimes they don't. I just can't buy into this idea that someone at the top says "I hereby decree you shall all do XYZ in demonstrations" and everyone underneath just falls into line and does it. Organisations like the police, armed forces etc need professional people who can apply their brain and expereince and judgment, not automatons.

In reply to off-duty:
Glad you think that officer in shoving Haw was probably an example of crap policing. It looked like a criminal act to me and if he can justify it legally then the system is broken.

>It's not the pushing and shoving that the protestor shoving over a police officer would have to account for - its the lawfulness and/or justification of his actions.

The problem is the lawfulness and/or justification of actions would worry most people but didn't seem to worry that inspector or the officer who pushed over Ian Tomlinson. In both cases an officer seems to have assaulted somebody and the other officers stood by.

I expect you earn and deserve public confidence or respect by doing your job lawfully.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
I'm sorry, I'm obviously not making myself clear. I don't think it has been decreed that kettling _will_ happen, I think that at some point, at some police-and-powers meeting, kettling has been deemed a good tactic, and that that view of kettling has disseminated through the police upper hierarchy, and that we are therefore now seeing a lot of kettling.

In reply to gingerkate:

or an increase in reporting on incidents of 'kettling'.

In reply to gingerkate: Ah, I see what you mean, thanks v much for clarifying. Probably right, it wouldn't be an available tactic if not considered useful(i.e. training time would not be given to it if it wasn't considered worthwhile, and they don't just rock up and do it, you need a lot of training and rehearsal for this sort of thing, time and money etc).

In reply to Paul F:
True. I think the right to peaceful protest is fundamental, and I don't consider kettling of predominantly peaceful groups is compatible with that right, so arguing against that is my priority.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains: Or an increase in incidents meriting kettling?

Am neither say that is the case not saying it is not the case, but trying to illustrate that there are plenty of plausible reasons for a percieved increase in kettling and we shouldn't jump too readily to assume it is a particular one of them.

In reply to gingerkate:

I agree completely, although i can't recall a peaceful protest (outside of the MET Police area) that has been 'kettled'.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Yes, I'm weighing up what you're saying and wondering if that could be right.

I must admit, I've always been protesting with very peaceful people, and the police recognise that, so it's flawed to extrapolate from my personal experience and claim there's been a change.

But what about violent protests in the past? Did kettling happen? Poll tax riots? Wasn't there, never heard mention of such tactics, anyone know??

In reply to Paul F:
Yeah, it's just the MET isn't it? Maybe I shouldn't be so paranoid then. Maybe it won't spread. Maybe this time next year we won't have got used to the sight of water cannon blasting away. Oh I do hope not

I just don't want England to go like all these other flaming countries where that's the way they handle things.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains: I believe 'kettling' is a necessary evil in order to contain a large crowd. As with the mayday protests and the likes, you have to contain these thugs to let the general public go about there business undeterred.The police have a duty of care to the public. We have to look at the bigger picture. Cast your mind back to NI, using 'dick guns' and snatch squads. Is this the answer? I'm sure the Police would rather contain them to minimise damage/injuries, identify the perps, then go back after the heat of battle and arrest them from the comfort of their homes.

In reply to gingerkate:

The key point for me, though, as far as the "UKC anti brigade" is concerned, is that you can think that kettling (and then horse charging the people you've got kettled) isn't a good tactic for allowing peaceful protests to pass off with minimal violence and confrontation without hating the police and being glad when they get stabbed...

In reply to Ramblin dave: Good post.

In reply to gingerkate:

Well we didn't get the World Cup, so that helps ;0)

In reply to gingerkate: Put it this way, I'm certain that with internet, mobiles etc if someone is seriously intent on stirring up a small bad arse group within a largely peaceful protest to go over the top and cause mayhem (and no one seems to deny these folk exist), going there to cause trouble rather than protest, it is a lot easier to do now than in Poll tax riots. Police tactics evolve with evolving threat and evolving situations.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yes. Very true. Also you saying that makes me realise we've rather gone off topic and it's actually not fair on the police officers posting here to suddenly demand they answer for the whole of uk policing. So I will now shut up. Probably

In reply to gingerkate:
Kettling isn't just the Met, happens in Glasgow.

In reply to The New NickB:

Does kettling mean you get a nice cup of tea from the police?

In reply to elsewhere:
Oh dear

In reply to PaleMan:

"Does kettling mean you get a nice cup of tea from the police?"

Don't be so silly. It means you get a damned good scolding (replacement A) and told not to do it again.