ThunderDragon Blog

First they brought in the “plastic plod”, with little training and even fewer powers to put “a police presence” on the streets and save money at the same time.

Yet that failed. And yet they wonder why.

So they decided to go even cheaper, with civilian police. No, not special constables, who plenty of training and powers, but people whose only qualification is the fact that they have a little red, white and black badge which reads “Community Safety Scheme Accredited” in tiny letters.

They have no training, and their powers are limited to being able to:

• issue fines for truancy, rowdiness, graffiti, dog-fouling and riding a bike on a pavement
• take cigarettes and alcohol from teenagers
• direct traffic, and
• ensure abandoned vehicles are removed.

This is just asking for trouble and for confrontations. If one of these 1,406 “accredited persons” with their ickle badge tried to issue me with a fine, they’d get told in no uncertain terms where they could shove it.

What we need is actual police on the streets. Policemen and women on the streets promote a feeling of safety. Policing on the cheap does nothing except alienate people from the law.

So crime is down , is it?

No, it’s not:

Over the decade since that tough on crime supremo took over, police recorded crime is up 7% (1997-98 to 2007-08). And when you probe beneath the totals, crimes of violence turn out to be up much MUCH more…

What’s that? Ah yes, of course - we’re not allowed to make that comparison because during the last ten years, the Home Office changed its counting rules for recorded crime not once, but twice. Twice. Is it any wonder nobody trusts the stats? (Burning our money)

Measuring crime stats is imprecise anyway - and always underestimates the level of crime because it is simply recorded crime that makes these statistics.

There is always the “dark figure” of crime, the crimes that are not reported to the police for various reasons - such as fear of reprisals from the criminals and concern over whether the police could or would bother to do anything about it. And with the way that the police appear to do so little about it at the moment - appearing to be more concerned with thought crime - the dark figure is inevitably huge.

To add to this is the lack of respect that is now given to the police by many sections of society, as exampled by this story:

Two police officers were attacked by a mob in south London after they asked a 15-year-old girl to pick up her litter.

One officer was dragged to the ground and kicked while the other was bitten by a girl who jumped on his back. (BBC)

How can it be claimed that crime is truly down when police officers are being attacked in this way?

We truly are living in a gangster’s paradise.

Unintentionally, I’m continuing a theme from last week - words that might cause offence.

I’ve read a couple of posts over the past week (from Nickopotamus and GeekLawyer) highlighting the news that the police themselves have taken action over a member of the public allegedly offending a group of individuals. An unamed 15-year old has been served summons by the City of London police under s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 -“displaying any sign …which is threatening, abusive, or insulting … likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.

What did the sign say then?

Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult

Continue reading ‘What’s the difference?rgb’

Harassment is wrong and illegal. We all agree on that, right? OK. So why is Jacqui Smith asking the police to harrass yobs?

We’ve already agreed that harassment is wrong and illegal. And the police have a duty to uphold the law. Yet the Home Secretary is asking telling them to carry our harrassment. It isn’t right.

Even yobs have rights. They should not be harrassed by police. They should either be charged with and prosecuted for a crime, or left alone like the rest of us.

Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter what the government may think. If the yobs are breaking the law, then they should be caught and dealt with there and then. They should not be followed around and be checked up on just because. That is as wrong as the misdemeanours that most of them undertake.

Harassment is wrong, whether it is undertaken by yobs or the police themselves.

This picture tells a story.

Either:

(a) We all need to wear a stab jacket when walking the street, even if flanked by three policemen,
(b) Only Harriet Harman needs to wear a stab jacket because she’s more important than us, or
(c) We’re all seeing things and Harman isn’t really wearing a stab jacket.

Her excuse that it is like wearing a hard hat when on a construction site is utterly absurd. You wear a hard hat on a construction site because things might fall from above - and, well, it’s the law. Wearing a stab jacket on the street, however, is certainly not on the same level.

I can’t help but think that this would just be a waste of police time. We pay the police to do this for us. To know and understand the problems in a community and to deal with it. It may well sound good to say:

But in reality, it’s a load of bollocks.

The police already know - or damn well should know - what the crime problems are in any given area. Giving out mobile numbers of police officers won’t help anything, except distract them from their actual job of dealing with crime even more than the current target-focused policing that this government has introduced. It is just a waste of police time.

Nevertheless, a greater level of contact between local police forces and local communities is desirable - but on a more manageable and less of a free-for-all basis. Such as, maybe, monthly meetings when residents can give their thoughts on crime issues to a local police force?

But one thing which would certainly enable more police to be communicating with local residents would be through reducing the ridiculous number of targets that they are expected to meet and the amount of paperwork that they are required to fill out foe every little thing, thus enabling them to actually patrol the streets in the way that we expect them to and come in to contact with the community that way.

As David Davis said: “The public want [the police] on the streets, not on the phone.”

The plastic police (PCSOs) have been awarded the full 2.5% back-dated pay rise that has been denied to real police officers. The Police Community Support Officers, who have no real powers - not even to arrest a suspect - are simply a waste of money. They have no real purpose, and yet are being awarded a greater pay rise than those who actually do the job that needs to be done, and are actually trained to do it properly.

Why are these pointless plastic policemen being awarded more than the real kind? I just can’t understand it. Not only is it hypocritical and divisive to offer a greater pay rise to a less qualified part of the police service, it is also utterly wrong.

Source: BBC

The police are to be balloted over the right to strike. They don’t currently have the right to strike, which is as it should be. If the police had the right to strike, they could very easily hold the government to ransom as the very fact that they are on strike would undoubtedly cause a break-down of law and order, on which modern society is reliant.

Police officers must not have the right to strike, whether or not they want it. Frankly, this should extend to all people directly employed by the state - policemen, civil servants, prison officers, doctors, teachers, the lot. If you take your pay cheque directly from the government, you should not have the right to strike for any reason. Don’t think you’re getting paid enough? Argue for more, put pressure in any way you like, such as only doing what is required of you in your contract, but no full-out striking. Really don’t think you’re not getting paid enough or whatever and the government won’t give in? Quit and get another job.

If you are employed directly through the state, and paid by taxpayer’s money, you should not have the right to strike.

I’ve just seen a report on TV saying that police drivers shouldn’t pursue criminals because some cause deaths. This is utterly wrong. The police should always give chase to suspects unless it is obviously extremely dangerous to do so for themselves and innocent passer-bys.

The fact-file that comes with the report says that there were between 11,000 and 19,000 police chases in 2005/6 in England and Wales, of which approximately one in eleven led to a death. Whilst this is obvious tragic for the individuals and their families concerned, it is usually the suspect - who is running away from the police - who dies. So, really, I can’t see it as much of a problem. If they hadn’t ran away, they wouldn’t have died.

If the police are restricted in the way in which they can give chase to criminals, then the criminals win. All they have to do is break the speed limit or do something considered dangerous enough to force the police not to pursue and they get away with it. This is obviously unacceptable. We cannot get into a position of policing by numbers, whereby criminals know all they need to do in order to escape the police is to run a few red lights.

Taking precautions to ensure that as few deaths as possible occur in police chases is obvious - but only so many can be taken. Such as training all police officers who drive patrol cars as highly as feasible, and have guidance on what sort of pursuits to continue, and which to back off from, but with the knowledge that these are guidelines not hard-and-fast rules. Also, helicopters could be employed - but they are expensive. But not everything can be done - for example, the skill of the driver being chased is, obviously, impossible to change.

But criminals must know that the police will pursue them. Otherwise they will have the ability to offend with impunity - so long as they have access to a car and are willing to take a few risks.

Source: BBC - article 1, article 2