The Policeman's Blog

THEY DON'T DO JOHN SMITHS

2009-07-12T05:51:00.004+01:00

I went here the other night:

They even have a website (don't skip the intro). It's one of three bars in the small town of Morinville, about half an hour's drive north of Edmonton, and just inside the city's commuter belt.

By coincidence, I arrested someone for warrants issued by the RCMP detatchment at Morinville. Some warrants get issued when someone fails to pay the relevant fine for breaking a provincial law, so you can end up dealing with someone for dog-fouling or fishing without a licence. At the other end of the scale, a 'Canada wide' warrant would get issued for a very serious offence like murder. My preferred warrant is called a 'Form 21' and is for immediate payment of a fine; there is a dollar amount or number of days in jail so if you can't pay the fine in cash, you go straight to jail AND there's no paperwork.

In the UK (correct me if I'm wrong) it's a nightmare trying to put someone on PNC (Police National Computer) as wanted, but over here, you go round to their home address, make a couple of other enquiries then put out a warrant for them - case closed. You can't put someone on as wanted if you only 'suspect' them and want to interview them, you have to actually have enough evidence to charge them. If you only have suspects, you'll generally close the file there and then, unless it's a serious matter.

Most warrants issued within the Province of Alberta are only valid within Alberta itself, so someone might be wanted for theft in British Columbia, but we can't arrest them in Alberta (obviously). It's not like Devon and Cornwall Police locking up your shoplifter so that you can drive down from say, Newcastle, and interview them. The distances here are immense, so if my shoplifter goes on holiday in Whitehorse (in Yukon) and gets picked up by the RCMP, I'm a 2385km camel ride away.

SATURDAY NIGHT NINJAS

2009-07-08T22:22:00.001+01:00

Economics of the Madhouse

2009-07-07T12:22:00.005+01:00

I've never met Sean Price, the chief constable of Cleveland, but it seems unlikely to me that he's worth £200,000 a year, however good he is. Still, it's comforting to know that the taxpayer is helping to put his kids through private school, isn't it?
The Times has done some digging into a number of chiefs' pay packages.
They've also found out that Sir Norman Bettison (W Yorks) has a 'unique package' worth about £55,000 a year, Ian McPherson (Norfolk) got £70,000 more than his £126,000 salary in 2007-08 and Essex's popular Roger Baker was awarded a golden handcuffs package to persuade him to stay.
As well as private school fees, car allowances and stamp duty, more dosh was handed out to various chiefs for relocation packages, satellite TV and 'lifestyle coaching' (whatever that is).
I suspect the thing that will bug taxpayers the most is the money given for 'home security'.
It would be nice it we could all have some of that.
At the same time, Sir Hugh Orde has warned that police forces will have to make cuts.
It would take forever to list the lunatic nonsense which could be scrapped in every police area up and down the land (flip flops, speeding cyclists, cardboard cops, lollipops etc etc etc).
Suffice it to say, if the forces stopped wasting money phoning people up to ask how they feel about interacting with the police, sacked their diversity co-ordinators, burned half the forms and concentrated on harrassing known criminals, an awful lot of the crime that real people in the real world are worried about could be dealt with overnight (with assistance from the courts and jails, of course).

BREATH-HOLDER

IT"S ALL RELATIVE

2009-07-01T19:25:00.005+01:00

Here's a story about how the chief has been getting people's backs up and morale is at rock bottom.

There's also this picture doing the rounds:

It's a sad reflection on Canadian humour (or is that 'humor'?) that while the idea itself is well executed, it's not as funny as it could have been.

When we join up, we all have these photos taken (in front of the flag, hat tucked under your arm) so that there's something other than your Facebook profile picture to put out to the media in the event of your demise. My picture has noticeably less brass in it.

News of the low morale failed to reach me before the news story, so I've been working away completely unaware of the growing crisis.

Inspector Gadget tells me that you are all having problems keeping cool whilst in your external body armour (or is that 'armor'?). You'll be pleased to know that we are issued with covert Second Chance body armour and 'x-static high performance' T-Shirts to go underneath! Hope that goes some way to making you all feel better.

Happy Canada Day!

GOOD TO BE HOME

2009-06-26T15:22:00.004+01:00

Here's a picture I took yesterday while I was working. It shows the Saskatchewan River running though Edmonton and is taken from this location here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.543113,-113.445425&spn=0.021115,0.076818&z=14

Forest Heights Park is in my district and unlike many parks in the UK isn't full of children getting off their faces on alcopops.

The river is in a steep sided valley as it runs through the city, and not used by shipping because it's too shallow. Next year, I'm getting a kayak and going to paddle along the river for a couple of days, packing my gear and camping on the bank.

Next month I'm off to Snake Indian Falls for a few days.

I've just got back from a two week holiday to the UK with Mrs C. It was quite strange going back after just over a year and a half away. Nothing much has changed and it was good to see family and friends once more. We hired a car at the airport and ended up driving from Manchester, to Birmingham, to Bristol, to Norfolk and back and found the amount of traffic amazing, even outside the cities. That said, there seemed to be a 'blitz spirit' amongst the drivers that you don't get in Alberta: the general standard of driving was very high and almost everyone was very considerate, resigned to the traffic jams.

Still, it was good to be back, Canada has now become home in such a short time.

This weekend we're having a squad barbeque out towards Tofield and Mrs C and I shall be celebrating nine years of marriage at Edmonton's premiere dining experience.

Blast From The Past

2009-06-23T11:57:00.002+01:00

Some people think the police are all thugs. Others think they're all incompetents. Others still think they're all incompetent thugs.
Well, given that the British police are drawn from the British population, and that we see all around us every day evidence of incompetence and thuggery, it would be surprising if a few didn't fall into one of the above three categories.
Most, though, are ordinary people who really just want to deal with shoplifters (and other criminals), as this classic PC David Copperfield post from yesteryear suggests.

Just how far I have departed from the approved method of dealing with criminals was revealed to me yesterday when I dealt with a shoplifter whilst accompanied by a probationer.

I dislike being accompanied by probationers when dealing with prisoners and I always say, “Whatever competencies you need me to sign off, I will, but don’t tell anyone else about what’s going to happen today.” Being able to deal with a shoplifter is the starting point for any police officer because it contains some simple elements of police work:
An offence
An offender
An arrest
A house search
An interview
A charge or caution
A file
A crime report

For me, speed is of the essence when dealing with so-called “simple shoplifters” (Adults who will readily admit the offence, don’t require a solicitor and speak English as a first language) and my record from arrest to caution is 57 minutes. Usually though progress is slowed by a number of requirements. These are:
An appropriate adult (for juveniles)
A solicitor (for the inexperienced)
An interpreter (for the foreign)
A house search (for the greedy)
A busy custody suite
A denial by the offender

Sometimes though, speed takes second place to other tactical considerations. For example: if I arrest a shoplifter at 12.00 midday and I need to finish at 4.00 pm, do I really need to hurry? Let’s say the average simple shoplifter takes three hours, why should I rush?

Anyway, back to the probationer and the prisoner. First the clarification interview:
“So, are you going to admit it?”
“Yeah.”
“Are you sure? Because if I interview you and you deny it, I’ll put you back in the cell and have to get more evidence. You understand that, don’t you?”
“Yeah, course.”

Next came the formal request for legal advice:
“Will you be wanting a solicitor? Just to help me get an idea of the time.”
“Err…yes I think I’d better had, just in case.”
“No problem. We’ll be able to have one for you in about three or four hours. I’m ready to interview you right now if you want.”
“OK. So can you just interview me and let me go?”
“Yeah no problem. You’ll have a solicitor at court anyway.”
“OK, well I’ll leave the solicitor then and you can interview me.”

Finally the house search, which has to be authorised by an Inspector or above. The police like searching houses and we can do it at the drop of a hat, we feel that if we have the power we should be using it. The problem is that in real life, you never find anything and it takes ages to get the necessary authorisation signed. The problem for me is not so much to get the search authorised as to persuade the Inspector that it’s not worth doing:
“Hello Inspector, It’s Dave Copperfield. I’ve got a shoplifter who’s stolen razor blades to the value of £20.00. They’ve been recovered and he’s cooperative.”
“Have we searched his house?”
“Not yet sir. The problem is we’re really struggling for people today and I’m ready for interview now.”
“OK, leave it then, carry on with the interview and get him charged.”

The interview lasts three minutes (including formalities) and the thief is charged. So we’ve managed to avoid a lengthy interview, a house search and the interminable wait for a solicitor and we’ve reduced the time spent dealing with the shoplifter by two hours and we’re almost back on the streets where the non-shoplifting public actually want us.

The piece de resistance is that the security guard has written his own statement, so I don’t even have to do that, I just pick it up later. Because the prisoner admitted the offence on tape, the quality of the witness statement is irrelevant, furthermore, the brief transcript of interview that I have to prepare for the file, contains the following: “Normal Introductions. DP made a full and frank confession to stealing the razor blades.”

To tie up some loose ends I have to explain to the probationer why I ask such penetrating questions in the car and not in the interview room, why we didn’t take the statement and why we didn’t do a house search as per force policy. Unlike many officers I have not been on a course to teach probationers, so I only have them for a day or so when their regular tutor is on holiday. I don’t like probationers to do anything: I’d rather take the responsibility myself rather than overhear one of them saying, “Dave Copperfield told me that it was OK to breach PACE and that it should be used as guidance rather than law.”

I'd never say that.

'SHOCKING' FOOTAGE!

2009-06-16T08:27:00.002+01:00

If this is police brutality, I'm a banana:

Why Labour Got Spanked

2009-06-08T09:58:00.002+01:00

Blair and Brown (and Blears, Harman, Balls, Cooper, McNulty and the rest of them) have given us taxpayer-funded plastic surgery for murderers, thousands of pounds-worth of cardboard cops and police officers handing out flip flops and lollipops to drunks instead of arresting them.
Thank God the cardboard and lollipop budgets were ringfenced, because actual frontline police numbers are going to be cut now the money's run out - though strangely, it only ran out for certain groups after media scrutiny proved they were lying about where they lived, claiming for mortgages they'd already paid off and signing off their husbands' porn bills.
These are people who can claim, with a straight face, that crime is down by 39% since 1997 (and what little there is can easily be dealt with by the PCSOs while the cops escort you home from the cashpoint, walk round with megaphones warning people to lock their doors or act as 'travel consultants' to advise women on how to get home at night).
The public used to buy this rubbish. Less and less, these days.
In many areas, violent crime - to take but one example - is actually hugely up, if you ask real people (like the doctors who actually treat the victims), despite all the snappily-named, not-in-the-real-world Edballsian programmes and initiatives which cost millions and make not a jot of difference.
Your chances of being stabbed on the streets of a Ruralshire village may not yet be that high, but in Newtown (Dave's old stomping ground of Burton on Trent) it's not exactly uncommon.
Labour's response? More civilians, more PCSOs, more initiatives, more bureaucracy, more tagging, more reports, more psychiatrists and probation officers and more supervision - which, sadly, doesn't always work all that well.
Ever since Dave started this blog, it's been consistent: the only thing which will stop serious, violent, recidivist criminals from preying on the vulnerable is jail.
Yes, there are many things which cause crime. Yes, it probably makes sense to try to treat prisoners with respect, and to try to educate them while they're in prison.
But for all the sociology and criminology and blather, one thing is inescapably true: while they're inside, they can't be demanding your mobile phone at the point of a kitchen knife.
Labour has never understood that.

SHOPLIFTERS

2009-06-04T03:11:00.004+01:00

Here's a video of some shoplifters being arrested:

For most probationers, arresting a shoplifter is the first lesson in police work (but they aren't usually as bad as that). You get to make the arrest, gather the evidence from witnesses or CCTV, process the prisoner, interview them, seek advice from CPS and finally charge/remand/bail as appropriate. It can be quite a complex process, especially if the accused is a child or doesn't speak English... or there's more than one of them, or they deny the offence etc. etc. etc.

In Canada, shoplifters are more straightforward. For a start, you get to decide whether there's enough evidence to charge, by speaking to witnesses and using your legal knowledge and a bit of common sense. I warned someone the other day. I don't mean I took them down the station, interviewed them and then four hours later got permission via a flowchart to give an official caution, I mean I sat them in the back of the car, had a look at their criminal record and said, 'Shoplifting is bad. Don't do it again. Now go home.'

The statements will be written by the witnesses themselves, not by you. Not only do you get to decide on whether to charge or not, you get to decide on bail as well!

Best of all though, all these decisions can be made in the car by accessing the databases on the computer, so unless you're going to remand them there's no need to go back to the station: you just give them the charge sheet there and then and send them on their way. You have to certain of someone's identity before you release them, so you look at their mugshot on the computer.

There's a bit of admin which you can do on another computer system in the car, and that's pretty much it.

For someone schooled in the intricacies of British criminal bureaucracy, dealing with a shoplifter in half an hour takes some getting used to, but it's worth remembering that there are parts of the world where this can be done and, what's more, the arrested person has pretty much all the same rights as they would in the UK.

Your report is approved by your sergeant and by a court liasion unit before going to the prosecutor, leaving little for the army of crime auditors and 'support staff' to do. Wait... oh that's right, there isn't an army of auditors, and assorted paper-pushers to check everything you've done. I got a prosecutor's request the other day, together with a note from our court liasion unit saying they'd completed the request for me.

I actually thought it was a joke.

And All My Bridges I Would Burn

2009-06-02T14:18:00.005+01:00

Jacqui Smith is about to 'resign' as Home Secretary, says the BBC (and others).
Oh no! It's a disaster! How will the fight against crime survive this?

She intends to stay in Parliament, though, and will be contesting her seat in Redditch.
Her majority there is 2,716, so, er, good luck with that one, Jacqs.

UPDATE:

Hazel has gone, too.

On her bike

THE POLICING PLEDGE

2009-05-30T20:38:00.004+01:00

Here's a link to the policing pledge.

Pretty fantastic I think you'll agree.

Anyway, with budgets coming under pressure everywhere and forces being reduced to a bare minimum number of crime auditors, news reaches me from Lancashire Constabulary about an internal marketing campaign to 'get everyone on board' and 'singing from the same hymn sheet'.

Here it is:

Here's a poster!!:

Lancashire Constabulary also have an internal message board for those with no interest in further career progression. Here's a selection of rather po-faced messages of lack of support. I've highlighted the best post, about half way down:

Policing Pledge versus Chocolate ????
Whoever designed the current "Policing Pledge" advert/campaign really should reconsider the whole thing. Trying to emulate a well known chocolate bar is not very sensible in this day and age of healthy eating... and to offer a month’s supply of chocolate as some kind of incentive to embrace the pledge is an insult to those people who:

Want to maintain a healthy eating approach
Diabetics
Any other person who has no interest in chocolate whatsoever.

If this was aimed at children I could see the adverts comparison aims... but we are not so why use this style?

I totally agree. It’s like pumping the smell of fish and chips through a dieter’s club. It’d be interesting to see if the sale of “Wispa” bars or chocolate in general has increased over the last week or so.

I fully agree with these comments. If you want to bribe people into reading the policing pledge then you should not be offering chocolate. This appears to be against all the health advice we are given. What are you going to offer next alcohol and cigarettes?

It would also concern me that you are close to breaching copyright.

Whoever thought this up should take more care for future campaigns and adopt a more professional approach.

Also what has the cost been to produce all these posters etc. not to mention the cost in staff time to put them up?

I saw two support staff that I didn't recognise, so I assume they were from HQ, putting up the 15+ (!!!) posters in my station.

Surely the Intranet was set up to be used for such purposes, to save money on posters and other "publicity" material which probably have a questionable relevance.

What worthwhile initiatives that would actually benefit the public of Lancashire could use the monies that have been wasted on this "awareness campaign"?

I agree with the previous post and wonder what reaction we will get from other partner agencies who visit our stations when they see what is basically a very "childish" campaign.

Subjects that are far more important like MOPI get no posters. Where's the logic in that?

Additionally has the Constabulary checked copyright issues because it would be tragic if they got sued by a leading confectionary manufacturer for breach of copyright?

But I love chocolate.....

I thought I should reply on behalf of the department who has thought up, produced and delivered this campaign across the force. There are a number of issues raised, and I would like to address them:

You are right to be 'concerned' about copyright - we certainly were and that is why we checked our legal position. Just so you are aware, there is no legal case for copyright in this case as the campaign is internally focused and we are not making any monetary gain from the 'adverts'. Even if this was 'external' we would have to be taking a market share from Cadbury and quite clearly as selling chocolate isn't our primary concern, then we wouldn't be. There may be an increase in chocolate purchases across the force though!

Secondly, this campaign was designed to get people talking and to raise the profile of the Policing Pledge across ALL staff. I am certainly pleased that we have succeeded.

We often get criticised for churning out the same old corporate stuff from HQ, so when we stray away from the norm to try and get some attention on an issue that is vitally important for the force, I am disappointed that some people can't support this approach.

I don't think the campaign is childish or unprofessional in any way - I am in my 30's and love chocolate (people who know me will totally understand that!) but I don't eat it every day as I do have an element of self control. It is a bit of fun to get people involved – you can take or leave the chocolate, but please do look at the Pledge.

The staff in our department are professional, specially trained graphic designers, marketers and communicators who take great pride in what they produce. They have been recognised outside the force for their work so I am quite comfortable that they have delivered an extremely professional campaign.

We felt it important to ask our own staff to come into division to put these posters up as we appreciate just how busy life is out there (I was out in division for 10 years until I came to HQ, so I like to think I haven't lost touch with reality completely).

Finally, the campaign has the support of the Chief Constable and the Police Authority and other organisations that have visited HQ in the last couple of days have actually asked to take samples back as good practice to their forces.

We are trying to support you, not work against you. Love it or loathe it, you are talking about it so we are quite happy with that.

Here, here!!

I thought it made a refreshing change, as the Constabulary is often thought of as stuffy with no sense of humour/fun (plus I love chocolate and still manage to lead a healthy lifestyle!!!)

I think that the campaign is highly creative and eye-catching. The posters look as if they have no bearing on police work, so staff seem drawn to them, which I guess is their intended purpose. Had it been the same old staid posters or leaflets, then they probably would have become as invisible as every other campaign literature has become. Love it or hate it, it seems to have even got the cynics talking about the 'Policing Pledge', so something must be working! As for the health benefits of chocolate, one can choose not to eat it, but I believe it does allow a release of endorphins. Conversely, you could always walk around your local supermarket getting into a fit of rhetoric about the masses of foodstuff as well as chocolate that lead to an unhealthy lifestyle. Doner kebabs or fruit, surely it's all about the 'Policing Pledge'.

It might be an idea to do a survey in due course as to how many people actually digested the Policing Pledge, and how many just digested a bar of chocolate!!

************** BEST COMMENT ********************
This is not a bribe, it's a great way to promote a fantastic and important performance initiative. It's just the sort of fun thing I joined the job for. I'm very impressed with the pledge and having told my wife all about it, she too is very interested and pleased with the whole thing. I suspect she'll be attending our local PACT meeting shortly for the first time ever to hear from our Community Beat Manager just what it will mean to us at a local level. This campaign certainly works for me. Viva la pledge, viva la chocolate. Operationalising the pledge will be hard work, but no one ever said it couldn't be fun too. I hope the next campaign will imitate Kentucky Fried Chicken, that'll whet my appetite for what could have been a very dry and boring subject even further. The Home Office have clearly put their best brains behind this. They are to be congratulated on their intuitive and well-researched, and very driven approach.

“If this is a success then it must have reached its target audience” Sorry, I did not realise I'm a chocolate eating 9 y/o with an IQ less than my shoe size. What Government sponsored initiative will we be tackling next in this vein?

"…this campaign was designed to get people talking and to raise the profile of the Policing Pledge across ALL staff. I am certainly pleased that we have succeeded"

But has it? It has certainly got people talking about the Pledge, but the content?

"We often get criticised for churning out the same old corporate stuff from HQ, so when we stray away from the norm to try and get some attention on an issue that is vitally important for the force, I am disappointed that some people can't support this approach."

So hasn't the 'norm' passed the different messages on throughout the years?

"I don't think the campaign is childish or unprofessional in any way - I am in my 30's and love chocolate (people who know me will totally understand that!) but I don't eat it every day as I do have an element of self control. It is a bit of fun to get people involved – you can take or leave the chocolate, but please do look at the Pledge."

I feel it is. Everything about the design from the logo, phrases used, type of pictures is reminiscent of 'spoof' adverts you sometimes see in student 'rag mags' and the like.

“The staff in our department are professional, specially trained graphic designers, marketers and communicators who take great pride in what they produce. They have been recognised outside the force for their work“
Yes, it is very well presented and executed and congratulations to the designers, but is it relevant and necessary in an environment such as ours? Tesco, Sainsburys or Asda maybe, but in a police station? No.

“We felt it important to ask our own staff to come into division to put these posters up as we appreciate just how busy life is out there (I was out in division for 10 years until I came to HQ, so I like to think I haven't lost touch with reality completely).”

Maybe a survey of staff within Divisions should be taken about the campaign?

“Finally, the campaign has the support of the Chief Constable and the Police Authority and other organisations that have visited HQ in the last couple of days have actually asked to take samples back as good practice to their forces.”

It would be interesting to see the feedback from the operational officers within the respective forces if and when they are used.

“We are trying to support you, not work against you. Love it or loathe it, you are talking about it so we are quite happy with that.”

I'm sure the rest of the Constabulary realise that, while the Constabulary may be talking ABOUT the Pledge (or the Pledge advertising campaign) are they talking about the content?

I have read the Policing Pledge as per instruction but I did print it out for the sole purpose of answering the questions for the competition, however I would like to know the definition of a month's chocolate because by my consumption, that's a high value prize.

Surely the constabulary could spend tax payers’ money better than wasting it on silly signs and advertising. Are we not supposed to be encouraging a healthy work force not a group of roly polys?

The "Chocolate Bar" Pledge
I'm sick and tired of seeing these damn chocolate bars all over the police station. I'm desperately trying to lose a bit of weight and have a soft spot for the Wispa Bar. Subliminal promises of chocolate are just not fair!!!!

Personally I think it should have been a can of polish on the promotional material... with the tagline "policing pledge... 10 steps for a polished performance"... God I’m in the wrong job !

What I find abhorrent is the fact that the Constabulary spends money on designing/printing a huge number of unnecessary and expensive posters, yet they won't contribute a single penny to the health and welfare of retired police dogs when they need veterinary treatment.

I have already had my say on this subject but then things got worse on Thursday when Pop-Ups started appearing every time I clicked on Sherlock. I thought I had gone onto one of those websites (you know the ones) by mistake.

As a said last time this is an unprofessional campaign and you have just proved it. It may have people talking but not about the pledge.

I would have loved to have been in the meeting when this campaign was green lighted. Despite the generally negative reception this will be a "huge success" as everything in this organisation is...

Fair point, I have some friends who worked on the Cadbury's Wispa campaign they would be a tad upset to see this somewhat blatant rip off

Can’t agree more - I’m constantly in and out of Sherlock and I’m getting these 'pop-ups' all the time. They're getting in the way.

If this were my personal computer I’d be upgrading my software to block them!

PLEASE someone tell me how to stop them.

Pledge and pop ups
Sorry, but these new 'pop ups' are really beginning to grate - we get it!

Insult to intelligence choc bribe
I agree with all the comments so far and have emailed media and marketing about this annoying pop up as follows:-

Please remove this extremely annoying pop-up as it’s stopping me from doing my job! I find it an insult to my intelligence to constantly see this appear each time I open a window. It’s bad enough seeing it on the front page and having banners about it in our work place. We don’t need to be offered unhealthy confectionery as an incentive to work hard and give good service to the public.

Thanks for your comments about the 'pop up' - we have had a number of complaints about it and are making steps with ICT to stop them today. So, please bear with us, as soon as we can stop them we will!

Macpherson, 10 Years On

2009-05-28T10:03:00.002+01:00

Stephen Lawrence's murder was, like all murders, a tragedy; every right-thinking person wants to see his killers locked up for life (if not hanged).
But did it prove that the Met were institutionally racist?
The doctor, prison trick cyclist and writer Theodore Dalrymple (on the sidebar under Politics and Media) thinks not.
The good doctor has written a piece for the US magazine City Journal about the disaster of Macpherson.
Attacking what he sees as the 'intellectual confusion', 'moral cowardice' and 'feeble mental pirouettes' of the learned judge, he points out the obvious truth: that the report was essentially a modern-day witch hunt, and its literally nonsensical findings (of 'institutionalised racism', because not one single episode of actual racism could be identified), have caused infinitely more harm than good.
It's well worth reading in full, but here's an edited version:

This year, on the tenth anniversary of the report, the press and professional criminologists are celebrating it for... bringing about a “paradigm shift” in the sensitivities of British police about “diversity”—police now think about race all the time, it seems. The report’s real effect, however, was to demoralise further an already demoralised police force, which, immediately after the report appeared, retreated from stopping or searching people behaving suspiciously and watched street robberies increase 50 percent.
...The public gallery regularly overflowed with activists and extremists, who did not hesitate to jeer and mock the witnesses with whom they disagreed; the head of the inquiry, Sir William Macpherson, rarely admonished these spectators, thus creating an officially sanctioned atmosphere of intimidation... (The report itself said:) “We thank the officers from the Walworth Police Station, who in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances have helped to keep order when emotions ran high.” An incipient riot is not a situation in which the truth is likely to emerge or to be uppermost in people’s minds.
...The report’s contention was that the mishandled Lawrence case illustrated the “institutional racism” of the (Met). Poor Sir William tied himself in knots trying to explain the notion of institutional racism... admitt(ing) he could point to no actual instance of racist behaviour by the officers involved in the case, though evidence of incompetence and delay was abundant.
Macpherson (said): 'Failure to adjust policies and methods to meet the needs of policing a multi-racial society can occur simply because police officers may mistakenly believe that it is legitimate to be ‘colour-blind’ in both individual and team response to the management and investigation of racist crimes.'
On the very next page, however, he quoted approvingly the assertion of an association of black police officers: “Institutional racism leads officers to act, albeit unconsciously, and for the most part unintentionally, and treat others differently because of their ethnicity or culture.”
In other words, if you treat people the same, you are racist; but if you treat them differently, you are racist.
The evidence of institutional racism that Macpherson uncovered would be laughable, had the liberal press not taken it so seriously. For example, when the police arrived at the murder scene, Brooks snarled: “Who called you fucking cunts anyway, pigs, I only called an ambulance.”
That the police did not feel entirely reassured that Brooks was a respectable, upright citizen, and ignored the fact that he was also a victim of the attack, became for Macpherson a sign of their racist stereotyping, not a natural response to such vile abuse, which is not a normal way for the law-abiding to address the supposed guardians of the law—or, indeed, anyone else.
...Sir William (criticised) some of the detectives (who) refused to accept that the Lawrence murder was “wholly racist,” though none denied at least a racist element.
Of course, since no one had actually been convicted of the murder, the murderer’s motive could not be known for certain. And even if the suspects—a violent group, certainly—were indeed the culprits, was racism the sole, or even primary, cause of their violence? One suspect—David Norris, the drug trafficker’s son—was almost certainly guilty of that earlier stabbing in which his father became illegally involved, as the report observed. But there the victim was white. Norris and two other suspects in the Lawrence murder had also been suspects in another assault, this one on two brothers, both white. In both instances, Norris got off because of incompetent prosecutions.
Macpherson did not draw the obvious inference, and if he did, the liberal intelligentsia would not have applauded.
Let us assume that Norris was indeed one of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers. If the prosecution of Norris’s earlier crimes had not been so incompetent, and if he had received an adequate sentence if found guilty (an unlikely outcome in contemporary Britain), then Lawrence would now be alive.
At one point, the inquiry listened to secretly recorded conversations among the Lawrence suspects. The conversations were racist in the crudest possible way, but they were not purely racist. Norris said, for example, “If I was going to kill myself, do you know what I’d do? I’d go and kill every black cunt, every Paki, every copper, every mug that I know.”
The police in London are not predominantly minorities; it is also unlikely that “every mug” that Norris knew was a minority. Norris’s propensity to racism was probably caused by his propensity to violence, rather than the other way around.
So on every possible ground, the police who dismissed the idea that the murder was “wholly racist” were right, at least factually.
Their error was political or even metaphysical—beyond the realm of mere empirical evidence. On Macpherson’s view, the police should act more as defenders of politically correct orthodoxy than as keepers of the peace and searchers after the truth.
...Further confirmation of Sir William’s moral cowardice was his uncritical acceptance of everything that Stephen Lawrence’s mother said. Now, Mrs. Lawrence had lost her son to murder, and the police had failed to solve the far from insoluble crime; she was understandably distraught and angry. But that did not make her the arbiter of truth; common sense, indeed, should have suggested the contrary. One might have hoped that a judge would have shown some judgment.
At the beginning of the report, Macpherson defended the unusually “adversarial” manner in which the inquiry was conducted. “Cross-examination of many officers was undoubtedly robust and searching,” he wrote.
A few pages later, without noticing any contradiction, he mentioned that when the counsel for the police was questioning Mrs. Lawrence, “The nature and content of the questions made Mrs. Lawrence protest that her perception was that she was being put on trial. Wisely (the lawyer) desisted.”
In short, only the accused could be questioned.
In her statement to the coroner’s court, [Mrs Lawrence] said (and later repeated the assertion to Nelson Mandela when he visited London): “In my opinion what had happened was the way of the judicial system making a clear statement to the black community that their lives are worth nothing and the justice system will support anyone, any white person who wishes to commit any crime or even murder against a black person, you will be protected, you will be supported by the British system.”
Even if we leave aside the question of why she bothered to participate in the system at all if it really was as she described it, she ought to have known that she was exaggerating. I quote from the report, which sought to show that Lawrence’s was not the only racist murder in the area:
In February 1991 a white man named Thornburrow murdered a young 15 year old black youth named Rolan Adams. . . . He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
On 11 July 1992 an Asian boy called Rohit Duggal was stabbed to death by a white youth named Peter Thompson. . . . Thompson was found guilty of the murder in February 1993.
Mrs. Lawrence should have known about these sentences. If she did not, she was ignorant; if she did, she was lying. But all that Macpherson said of her incendiary charge was that it showed the depth of her feeling—not that it was inaccurate and misleading. Her victimhood had to be immaculate.
Mrs. Lawrence further said that she felt condescended to by the police and ascribed this condescension to their racism. Macpherson showed—surprisingly, for a judge—no recognition of the obvious difficulties in accepting such feeling as evidence of anything. He did not even demand that her feelings have some objective correlative: if she felt condescended to because of racism, she was condescended to because of racism
Among the report’s many pernicious recommendations was the following: “The definition of a racist incident should be any incident which is perceived as racist by the victim or any other person.”
Nothing could be better designed to destroy the possibility of easy—dare I say normal—relations among people of different races. For the notion that racism is so pervasive and institutionalised that it is everywhere, even where it appears not to be, induces in the susceptible a paranoid state of mind, which then finds racism in every possible situation, in every remark, in every suggestion, in every gesture and expression. It is a charge against which there is no defence.
Two incidents in my clinical experience illustrate this nonfalsifiability.
In the first, the lawyers for a black defendant asked me to appraise his fitness to plead. The defendant faced charges of assaulting another black man, out of the blue, with an iron bar. The man was obviously paranoid, his speech rambling and incoherent; his lawyers could obtain no sensible instructions from him. I argued that he was unfit to plead. Whereupon the man’s sister denounced me as a racist: I had reached my conclusions, she charged, only because her brother was black. Her 15-year-old daughter started to describe to me her frequent difficulties in understanding her uncle, only to be told to shut up by her mother. The lawyers had been unable to obtain instructions from the defendant only because they were white, the sister persisted. Give her brother black lawyers, and he would be perfectly reasonable. Of course, if I had said that he was fit to plead, she could have claimed with equal justice (which is none) that I came to that conclusion only because he was black.
The second case, far more serious, ended in a man’s death; the blame was partly mine.
A black man in his mid-twenties arrived at our hospital with severely cut wrists. He was nearly exsanguinated and needed a large blood transfusion; his tendons also needed an operation to repair. By all accounts, he had been a perfectly normal man, happily employed, a few weeks before, but suddenly he had stopped eating and become a recluse, barricading himself in his house until police and family broke in to reach him.
His suicide attempt was not one of those frivolous gestures with which our hospitals are all too familiar. If ever a man meant to kill himself, this man did.
His mother was by his bedside. I told her that her son should remain in the hospital for treatment (you’d hardly have to be a doctor to realise this). At first she was perfectly agreeable; but then a friend of the young man, himself young and black, arrived and instantly accused me of racism for my supposed desire to lock the patient up. I tried to reason with this friend, but he became agitated and aggressive, even menacing. Whether from conviction or because she, too, felt intimidated, the mother then sided with the friend and started to say that I was racist in wishing to detain her son.
I could have insisted on the powers granted to me by law—asking a court to have social services replace the mother as the patient’s nearest relative for the legal purpose of keeping him in treatment. But I did not fancy the process: the young friend had threatened to bring reinforcements, and a riot might have ensued in the hospital. Instead, I agreed to the demand that I let the patient go home. The two said that they would look after him, and I made them sign a paper (of no legal worth) acknowledging that I had warned them of the possible consequences.
This piece of paper they screwed up into a ball and threw away immediately outside the ward, where I found it later. I had made copies, and it was one of these that I sent to the coroner when, six weeks later, the young man gassed himself to death with car exhaust.
The notion of ubiquitous, institutionalised racism resulted in his death; and I resolved that it would never intimidate me again.

You Can't Imagine How Stupid The Whole World Has Grown Nowadays

2009-05-21T15:15:00.005+01:00

Sean O'Neill, crime editor at The Times, writes to ask us to stick his new(ish) crime blog, 'Crime Central', on the blogroll. It's good stuff. This recent tale about our old friend Anne Owers - and her suggestion that 'Travellers' should be given 'ethnic food' - should raise a chuckle/eyebrows/bloodpressure. What sort of food is 'ethnic' to do-as-you-likeys, anyway? Half-inched dogburgers? Wagon wheels? Porridge?

Meanwhile, Mr C writes from deepest, darkest Somewhereshire with a familiar tale of public sector madness. (If you want, send in your own stories of policing lunacy via the email link at the top right.)

Recently, our department has acquired a new boss at a Senior Management level. As a clue, he gets paid over £60,000 a year and is eligible for 'performance related bonuses'.
For those outside the Job, these bonuses seem to be paid to senior officers who by either bullying their workforce or by 'adjusting' figures can show that their management skills have improved the performance of their minions (PCs).
Our 'performance' figures are entered by ourselves on a daily/weekly/monthly/when-we-can basis, and are typed into a badly-constructed basic Excel spreadsheet which in itself takes ages.
Our bosses look at many areas of our work, such as intel reports submitted, stop searches carried out, arrests for crime/public order/traffic offences and drug offences.
Time deployed to incidents and to operations is recorded, and - being a specialist department - there are many other columns to fill in, too.
This is probably familiar to many (if not all) who read these blogs - despite promises to end the madness.
BUT - and this is where the £60,000-worth of management comes into being - each entry is worth One Point.
This means that a hard-worked investigation to arrest a suspect for an assault or burglary is worth the same as telling our intel unit that Joe Bloggs was wearing a t-shirt today.
All the points are added up and a bar graph is produced showing how many points each officer has gained.
Not all officers have the same specialist skills, and we are spread all over the Force area which has different crime trends and different levels of crime.
Annual leave or RD in lieu are not taken into account and the officer at the end of the month who has the smallest bar is subjected to an action plan (which apparently isn't an action plan at all).
Once more, inept management has caused another dip in morale, the spreadsheets are drifting further away from the truth as officers embellish figures to ensure they are not at the bottom - and I dare not go sick with stress as I may lose out on an SPP payment if I take too many days off work (currently averaging less than one day per year worked).
Please: More carrot and less stick!

Mr C

NEW ADDITIONS

2009-05-19T22:12:00.003+01:00

Have a look at the following additions to the sidebar:

The Thinking Policeman

The Duty Sergeant

Police One

Enjoy!

BIG NEWS

2009-05-14T02:17:00.003+01:00

The big news round these parts is that a man called Shawn Michael Price has been shot by the police. Reports in the media have described Price as standing, sitting, lying down and with his hands both up and down at the time he was shot. He was also seen to be fighting and not fighting with police officers.

In the absence of fresh developments, the media have concentrated on the man himself. Like many in the criminal fraternity, he was, 'getting his life back together' and 'turning over a new leaf'' when he died. Next we'll be reading that he was actually a saint murdered by police days before he was due to be canonized by the Pope.

Today's Edmonton Sun ran with a story about Price's daughter Skylor and her mother Stacie. The Sun is widely despised in police circles for being anti, but today's edition carries a couple of well chosed sentences that reveal much about Price and Stacie:

"Love blossomed for Shawn and Stacie Price in 1995, inside the sheriff's van carrying them to prison." Pretty romantic, I think you'll agree. They married, but sadly the honeymoon was cut short about a week later "...when Shawn was arrested at a Nanaimo ferry terminal for skipping his parole."

If The Streets Are So Safe And Labour Has Ended Crime...

2009-05-11T11:33:00.003+01:00

...why would a Labour Minister need to spend £25,000 of taxpayer's cash on private security?
Can't multi-millionaire's wife Barbara Follett just call for some officers to escort her home from the cashpoint like everyone else?

Reductio Ad Absurdum, part 58

2009-05-06T11:02:00.002+01:00

If you introduce thousands of new laws but don't build enough prison spaces and you fill those you do have with criminals imported from overseas while you're trying to keep the Gurkhas out, the logical next step is a police force on call to escort people home from cashpoints.

There's never a publicist around when you need one

2009-05-04T20:29:00.005+01:00

Is it just me or does each G20 allegation seem to be getting shriller and shriller? “Me! Me! I was slapped by a policeman so I hate the police too! And they never found the kids who robbed my Ipod!”

However bad things get for the average bobby, the existence of South Korean riot police will always mean there is at least one law enforcement organization in the world more hated than the British police. I’ve always thought that Koreans are the Brazil of public order, with both sides well organized and determined. Because of the differences in language (spoken and written) I’ve never been able to fathom what they’re demonstrating about, but they take it very seriously nevertheless. In contrast, British demonstrations are tedious affairs with everyone filming everyone else and tactics like the ‘kettle’ designed to bore everyone into submission.

To illustrate what I mean, here’s a long-haired demonstrator getting a rather half-hearted bop on the head with a shield:

OK, OK, I’m being unfair. You can see that the officer’s doing his best, but years of training and a genetic British pre-disposition to being nice, mean that it’s not much more than a sharp tap. Far from being deterred, the demonstrator still seems to want to stop and chat to the policeman. I wonder what his mum said when he got home? My mum would have said:

-Why weren't you at work?

-What were you doing there in the first place?

-What did you expect?

-Don't tell your father.

And believe me, responses like, 'I was exercising my democratic right to demonstrate against this fascist government' would have got me a lot worse than a sharp tap to the head.

Contrast that with these South Korean shield shenanigans:

See what I mean? Absolutely horrific. The demonstrators are simply pleading for a return of their heroes the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, hence their rather curious get up and the policeman are clearly trying to confuse the media by having the same numbers on their shields. Anyone know the Korean for, “I’ve been hit by a policeman, fetch me a publicist”?

SCONES

2009-04-27T19:16:00.003+01:00

Most of my fellow police officers think that my previous service consisted of riding around on a bicycle and stopping for tea and scones with the elderly. Fortunately, I'm able to show them what I did by the magic of youtube, where you can see clips from Traffic Cops, Night Cops, Brit Cops UK and Cops With Cameras. 'You don't see any of them eating scones!' I say.

On looking at the clips, many of them stare with their mouths open at the bravery of British officers, concluding that they must know how to do things safely, but because they spend most of their time eating scones, whenever they get to deal with a potentially violent suspect, they like to make things more dangerous for their own entertainment.

Surely, they think. this can be the only reason for handcuffing people to the front. Why else would you ask someone to have a seat in the back of your car without handcuffing them? Imagine the adrenaline rush you must get from raiding a premises containing drugs and weapons without being armed yourself! 'You're all lunatics!' They tell me.

We don't handcuff people with their hands in front of them, for the same reason that we don't hand detainees a length of chain and say,'Go on, do your worst.' We also don't let people in the car without handcuffing them with their hands behind their back (we're not a chauffeur service after all). We also seem to do a lot less discussion with people, not because we're fascists with unlimited powers, but because when we ask people to do something, they generally do it. More often than not though, they're handcuffed with their hands behind their back, so their options are limited.

The only Canadian reality cop show is called To Serve and Protect (no link). In comparison with the UK equivalent, it's quite boring, with none of the drunken fighting, long discussions and bad behaviour so familiar to the average bobby. Instead, the fuzz arrive, handcuff lots of people, who then mutter quietly at the injustice of it all. Where's the fun in that I ask you?

USE OF FORCE (3)

2009-04-23T20:10:00.004+01:00

Here’s the video and news report in full.

The title pretty much says it all: ‘Road Rage Cop caught on Video’. But like so many news stories, we never seem to hear the end,

In this case there was a trial and the ‘road rage cop’ was found not guilty. The judge noted:

The defendant was justified in using force to prevent Mr. Sokol from damaging the defendant’s vehicle. The issue is whether he used excessive force. It is possible that the defendant might have been able to stop Mr. Sokol from damaging his vehicle with the application of less force, but that is a matter of speculation.

An alternative might also have been unwise, since the risk of injury to the defendant was a very real consideration. As it happened the defendant’s split-second decision was to rain three quick blows on Mr. Sokol. While the defendant wasn’t entitled to use excessive force. Also, the criminal law does not require that the defendant measure his blows with precision.

So why was the driver OK to deliver three punches to the head of the cyclist? Why not just one? What would have happened if he had delivered ten blows? Or hit him with a tire iron? Would it have made any difference if the cyclist was an 80 year old female? Would three punches have been enough if the cyclist was an off-duty championship cage fighter?

In an ideal world, there should be some system for working all this out; something like a mathematical equation where you enter in the figures (height of assailant, reach, weight, years of fighting experience) adjust for conditions (wet surfaces -5 points, darkness +10 points, small fighting area -2 points) then come out with an answer like ‘You can hit this person 5 times’ or ‘You should negotiate for 5 minutes before striking the person twice in the lower leg’. Sadly, such a formula doesn’t exist so what we’re left with are ‘models’ like the one below (click to enlarge):

These are popular in police training, because when used in conjunction with practical scenarios, they illustrate when a certain degree of force is justified. Have a look at the circle with ‘cooperative’, ‘passive resistant’, ‘active resistant’, ‘assaultive’ and ‘serious bodily harm or death’. These are all attempts to label the demeanour of your subject (the person you’re about to use force on) and working outwards, you can see the different variations in the amount of force you can use, varying from no force at all ‘communication’ through ‘physical control’ and ‘intermediate weapons’ all the way up to ‘lethal force’. Looking at the whole thing, you can see that you’re only going to use lethal force on subjects who are likely to do you ‘serious bodily harm or death’, but folks who merely want to fight you (assaultive in the diagram) merit the use of intermediate weapons like a baton, CS spray or even a taser, but you've also got the options of carrying on talking to him and trying to physically control with him with your bare hands.

Have a look at the slightly disturbing video of a police officer shooting an unarmed man and try to apply the diagram.

OK, it was a trick, he wasn’t unarmed, he had two very effective fists. To begin with it’s an assault and the officer uses his pepper spray, but as the fight goes on the officer realizes his subject has gone beyond being assaultive and intends to do him some serious damage and shoots him. For what it’s worth, I’d have shot him as well.

I hope I’ve shown that deciding whether or not to use force isn’t a science. A lot of it is subjective, made in the heat of the moment when you’re very scared, and likely to be reviewed at length, frame by frame by people who were never there and when the only real danger is running out of biscuits. What’s more, the decisions about whether you, as a police officer or as someone who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, won’t be made by self-defence professionals, they’ll be made by juries, judges or magistrates.

USE OF FORCE (2)

2009-04-18T17:06:00.002+01:00

Many thanks for all the comments about the (slightly) edited video. I was using it to illustrate a couple of things: firstly it shows how misleading video images can be but more importantly I wanted to show how we make decisions about using force.

I’m presuming you came to some conclusions about the video, specifically that one person (the driver of the car probably) was guilty of assault and the other (the cyclist) was the victim of a pretty much unprovoked attack. Many of you guessed that there was some sort of provocation going on, but figured that despite this, the driver used excessive force.

Anyway, here’s a bit more information that forms some of the background to the incident, from the perspective of the driver:

You’re driving your car on your way to a medical appointment (following a car accident some weeks previously) during the busy morning rush hour when you approach a major intersection on the inside lane of a dual carriageway. There are two lanes in each direction and there’s a cyclist in the middle of the lane ahead of you. Now legally*, he shouldn’t be there, he should be next to the sidewalk, so you honk your horn, hoping the cyclist will move into the correct lane and allow you to pass in safety.

However, the cyclist doesn’t. He stops right in the middle of the lane, turns to face you, smiles, then gets out his cellphone and makes a call, right in the middle of the lane. You’re still in your car, you are 5’9’’ and 170 lbs. The guy ahead of you on the bike is over 6’ tall and about 250 lbs, you think he wants some sort of confrontation so, sensibly, you stay in your car.

Finishing his call, the cyclist sets down the kick stand of his bike right in front of you and walks over to the sidewalk and stands there with his arms folded across his chest looking at you. You can't drive forwards because of the bike and you can't reverse because of the line of cars behind, so you now get out of your car and reason with him as follows:
You: Hey guy, please move your bike so I can get by.
Cyclist: No.
You: Why not?
Cyclist: That’s my bike.
You: If you won’t move your bike, I will move it.
Cyclist: That is my bike. Don’t touch it.
You: (Pointing to a line of stopped cars behind) Look, no one can get by. Please move your bike.
Cyclist: (Stands and stares at you)
At this point you attempt to move the bike to the curb. The cyclist grabs it and begins to lift it over his head. You release your grip and back away. The cyclist puts it back down and says, “If you touch my bike, I will throw it through your windshield.”

By this time other motorists are honking their horns and passers by are slowing to watch. The cyclist appears to be enjoying the attention. More time passes. The man stands on the curb staring at you. You repeatedly plead with him to move the bike; he refuses.

Finally, in frustration, you attempt to sweep the bike onto the curb with your foot. The cyclist picks up the bike and attempts to throw it at the windshield of your car. You punch him quickly three times, the first in the mouth.

As the cyclist turns away from the blows he grabs your arm and twists it, tearing the rotator cuff. You feel a sharp pain in your shoulder and cannot move your arm. The cyclist drops the bike, blades his body and begins to walk toward you with his fists out ready to fight. You’re in pain, you back away, get into your car and drive away.

*In this case, maybe not in the UK.

Put yourself in the position of the driver. What would you do under similar circumstances? In particular, try to consider the following factors:

1. You don’t know the guy on the bike. He might do lots for charity and be a really great person, but he’s taller and bigger than you. He might well be stronger too.
2. You’re ill; you’re on your way to see the doctor.
3. The guy on the bike isn’t acting in what most of us think is a rational way. Why not? Why does he appear so defiant?
4. You can’t sit there forever. There are cars behind you and you’re allowed to drive down the road. You’re going to be late for your appointment.
5. You know, after asking him to move the bike the first time, that he’s willing to lift the bike up and throw it through your windshield. What does this tell you about him? What does it show about his state of mind?
6. If he’s willing to throw his bike through your windshield, what’s he willing to do to you?
7. It’s your car and you don’t want anyone to damage it.
8. On the other hand, you’re law-abiding and you don’t want to get into trouble.

There are a more or less infinite number of options, from locking the doors of the car and waiting for the police to show up, to beating the cyclist to death with a tire iron. Even after watching the video and reading the background above, there's still a lot that you don't know (just like the driver), but you still have to choose something.

Conclusions and the full story next time. Good luck.

USE OF FORCE (1)

2009-04-16T14:53:00.002+01:00

Have a look at the fight in the video above. There are two people involved in the actual fight, one's a driver and the other a cyclist. There are also a number of witnesses, at least one of whom has a video camera and recorded the fight. Now, for the purposes of this example I'd like you to say what you feel about the incident caught on video.

No comments are 'wrong' and the only ones that will be deleted will be those that spoil the exercise by linking to the actual incident. There's no sound (I've deleted it) and this footage is the only evidence you have to base your comments on. Don't use any technical, law-enforcement type terms, just say what you see and what you think is happening.

Perhaps you think one of the participants has gone too far or maybe you're a cyclist and have some symathy for the guy with the bike. Maybe you've been involved in a similar incident and can relate to the driver of the car. How would you feel if you were standing on the sidewalk a few feet away and saw the whole thing? If you think someone is guilty of something, say so (bear in mind the title of this piece). Imagine you're a member of the jury deciding a case in which this footage is vital, what conclusions do you draw? Whatever you do, don't say something like, 'I wouldn't like to say anything because there isn't enough information.' because that's no fun.

IAN TOMLINSON

2009-04-08T16:42:00.003+01:00

Here's the footage. We're happy to blog about anything, good or bad. Feeel free to comment too.

Here's another story about a police officer causing death by dangerous driving.

AERO-SOLES

2009-04-07T23:08:00.003+01:00

Anyone not enjoying the G20 was probably dealing with stuff like this. It’s a tale from a social worker called Winston Smith about two girls in his care getting into a fight then calling the police. When the police arrive, they spend a long time investigating it, interviewing people and taking statements. It’s certainly familiar stuff, but got me thinking about how I would deal with things now.

To begin with I’d take the details of every person involved, particularly the youngsters and mainly because the chances are at least one of them would have outstanding warrants.

Then I’d speak to each person in turn to see what happened and see if there are any witnesses or any injuries corroborating the complainants account.

Next, I wouldn’t take any statements. I’d had a blank form to each witness and the complainant and get them to write down what happened.

Finally (and this bit may seem strange) I would decide what to do. Unlike in the UK, a simple allegation isn’t enough to make an arrest and without any corroboration I couldn’t charge anyone (you need the same level of evidence to arrest as you do to charge here). Given the trivial nature of what happened, I’d probably give Winston the file number and tell everyone to sleep on it.

After leaving the care home, I’d drive round the corner and spend half an hour typing up the report, before electronically sending it to my sergeant, the school liaison officer and the social workers. Job done.

Would I get sent to it in the first place? Probably not. Our call evaluators would speak to Winston and ask him if the police were required, rather than relying on the word of the children in the care home.

I can’t see this taking any more than one officer an hour, and that includes writing the report. What’s more there would be no follow up, beyond a phone call the next day to ask if everyone was still alive.

There is a dark side to all this though and you can see it at http://www.edmontonpolicewatch.org/ . An enthusiastically (some might say obsessively) maintained website dedicated to dishing the dirt on the aforementioned police service. Still, you know what they say? If you're not getting complaints you're not doing your job right.

Officer Down (But Others Up)

2009-04-06T17:52:00.004+01:00

Nightjack is on his/her way out. Read him/her while you still can, if you haven't already.

Meanwhile, Peter Fahy, Op Cougar and GMP - take a very well-deserved bow. Given how hard it is to nail truly dangerous criminals who are well-entrenched in their turf, this is a fantastic result. (Though by proving that the police can have an effect on crime, and that - therefore - it's not just the inexorable and inevitable result of societal inequality, they are asking to be Ray Malloned.)

But Jacqui - for proper violent thugs like these, is there any chance of a sentence handed down ever equalling the sentence they serve?

"In 2000... Amos and Joyce were arrested by armed police whilst holding a gangland summit meeting. (A)n extraordinary array of firearms, loaded and ready to use, was recovered including a Skorpion 7.65mm sub machine gun, a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum revolver and a Colt .45mm self loading pistol. A full loaded magazine for the Skorpion was found lying on a bed near the gun. Body armour, night vision binoculars, bandanas and clothes especially adapted to carry guns were also seized. Amos himself was wearing body armour and Joyce was wearing a pair of jeans modified so it could conceal a gun in his pocket.
"Both men were each jailed for nine years, but they were given early release in 2006, and emerged all guns firing, quite literally.
"Amos was subsequently suspected of masterminding the kidnapping for a £350,000 ransom of a businessman who was held prisoner for 27 hours. The victim was tortured with a blow torch and electric jump leads as one of his captors held a gun at his head playing Russian Roulette.
"After a spate of more killings, the pair were finally arrested again in the summer of 2007."

So if they hadn't been released, that's one blowtorch victim and a few corpses (plus lots of other naughtiness) which wouldn't have happened. Perhaps the Two-Home Secretary will resign over this one to spend more time with her husband and his extensive collection of art-house videos.

"In Manchester, the arrest of Amos and Joyce has led to a 92 per cent reduction in shootings and not a single gang murder in a year."

What's that, you say? Prison doesn't work?

TCT