|
Derek Smith
16,041 posts
117 months
|
turbobloke said: Your first approach was to trivialise my comments into yet another strawman. Predictable if nothing else. What follows in your reply is a tad on the odd side and more unexpected...my description of shambles and disorgansation wasn't my own, it was in a PolFed report compiled using info from rank and file ossifers on the ground. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/police-su...Feel free to continue your criticism of the police's self-diagnosis in a separate post. Will you allow me to comment on the politically biased pronouncements of the police federation as well on this post? They are running a campaign against the swingeing cuts. This is just another such broadcast. Everyone has an angle.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,487 posts
129 months
|
"having seven shades of sh-t kicking out of each and every one of them by the Police, then each member of the mob putting in prison for ever"
Sounds perfect for a pair of training videos, police and courts.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,487 posts
129 months
|
Derek Smith said: turbobloke said: Your first approach was to trivialise my comments into yet another strawman. Predictable if nothing else. What follows in your reply is a tad on the odd side and more unexpected...my description of shambles and disorgansation wasn't my own, it was in a PolFed report compiled using info from rank and file ossifers on the ground. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/police-su...Feel free to continue your criticism of the police's self-diagnosis in a separate post. Will you allow me to comment on the politically biased pronouncements of the police federation as well on this post? They are running a campaign against the swingeing cuts. This is just another such broadcast. Everyone has an angle. Snafu'd communications has nothing to do with police numbers.
|
|
|
Dibble
7,613 posts
109 months
|
Breadvan72 said: My experience of meeting senior police officers from large city police forces has left me unimpressed. They appear to be political operators, over burdened by political correctness, and not well in touch with street policing. Having an institutional sulk would be pretty remiss, when effective command was called for. But do senior officers "need" to have an idea about street policing? (Yes they do, but to what extent?). Surely their role is a strategic one? Of course they're political operators, but at some point between the boots on the ground and HMG, there will be a level of politicisation? I've met several senior officers who've impressed me, but it's not necessarily those who've been good "street cops". Some of them have been those who've been prepared to make political decisions, unpopular with the rank and file, but the charisma and balls to say "I'm the boss" and be able to justify their rationale. The fact they were even prepared to try was refreshing on its own - there are plenty who'll not give you the time of day.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,223 posts
32 months
|
The ones that I met seemed to be overly concerned with image, spin, and avoiding being blamed for anything. I have met some impressive middle ranking police commanders.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,487 posts
129 months
|
Breadvan72 said: The ones that I met seemed to be overly concerned with image, spin, and avoiding being blamed for anything. This is today's promotion fodder, and how to get it. Breadvan72 said: I have met some impressive middle ranking police commanders. Who will have difficulty getting any further until they mutate via political reptilian DNA and morph into the other group. You guys doubtless have more contact with braid than me these days, but when I did, the above is how it was, and I strongly suspect, still is.
|
|
|
Dibble
7,613 posts
109 months
|
Breadvan72 said: The ones that I met seemed to be overly concerned with image, spin, and avoiding being blamed for anything. I have met some impressive middle ranking police commanders. But a big part of modern policing is "image", ie what "the public" think of "us". Sometimes I think we're too slow to reply to criticism and it makes a refreshing change when a senior officer does come out and say something robust. Unfortunately as you say a lot of the higher ups are afraid of bad publicity and are often constrained by matters that are (or perceived to be) sub judice.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,223 posts
32 months
|
Turbobloke, sadly, I think you are probably right.
Dibble, it's bad enough when members of the public misunderstand the (actually quite limited) sub judice rules, let alone when senior police officers do so.
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,041 posts
117 months
|
Dibble said: I'm in the "I've no idea whether or not Harwood is guilty as I've not heard/seen all the evidence" camp. I'm of the "The courts have decided. If I go against them I'll only get myself wound up for no particular reason." camp. I remember an old PC (about 20 years younger than I am now) say to me when a charge was dropped against someone who was patently guilty: He'll come again. If he don't then we've probably done our job." Not such a good theory if the offence was murder I will accept. Dibble said: The point I was trying to make is that "the public" want the Police to be all touchy freely, right up to the point where the mob's behaviour directly affects them, then they want the entire mob kettling and having seven shades of s  t kicking out of each and every one of them by the Police, then each member of the mob putting in prison for ever. The whole problem with "reasonable force" is that it's a subjective test. What I might think is reasonable, you may not (and yes, I'm pretty confident that I can tell the difference between the two extremes you describe, but the problems are where the situation is "greyer"). As an illustrative example: you are part of a police serial, outnumbered by an angry crowd, in an area that has traditionally had difficulties with the police. You're not from that borough, you've been drafted in on mutual aid. Pre deployment, you've had a briefing, including intelligence that young females carry firearms for older male gang members as the females are slightly less likely to be stop searched, following spurious allegations of sexual assault during previous stop searches. In a shield line, you notice one particular female repeatedly approaching colleagues and verbally goading them, then escalating to making gun shapes with her hand and pointing her fingers at a particular officer. This female is backed up by a crowd of a couple of hundred, male and female. There are about 20 Police officers in your serial, none from the local area. The female returns to the mob, missiles are thrown, then the female comes forward again. Your orders are to hold the line to protect an important arterial road junction. The female retreats, and three petrol bombs are thrown, landing near to you. You see something being passed to the felmale, who again approaches the line and extends her arm into a firing position, holding something shiny... You've already been on your feet for ten hours, it's eight hours since you last had a drink, it's dark and your visor is misted. You are sweating, dehydrated and physically exhausted as you've been on your feet for 36 of the last 40 hours. How do you treat that female, as she starts running, arm outstretched, towards you, shouting? That's a better example than mine. It is a classic case. In a case in Sussex a man was shot dead in somewhat similar circs and the PC was charged with murder and manslaughter (that's a separate thread) despite a judge at a pre-trial hearing telling the defence that they had no case to answer. Yet a PC might well be prosectured nowadays if he pushes someone away in just the case you say. In short, the goalposts are moved on occasion. The size of the grey area varies. I was on a course for pepper spray and we were told that we should not use it on women except in extreme circumstances. One PC, a female, asked for justification of this patently sexist attitude and the instructor said that courts will tend to look more gently on justification if a man is sprayed rather than a woman. His advice, he said, was for self defence and that was what the course was all about.
|
|
|
don4l
3,314 posts
45 months
|
Dibble said: <snipped for brevity> You see something being passed to the felmale, who again approaches the line and extends her arm into a firing position, holding something shiny...
You've already been on your feet for ten hours, it's eight hours since you last had a drink, it's dark and your visor is misted. You are sweating, dehydrated and physically exhausted as you've been on your feet for 36 of the last 40 hours.
How do you treat that female, as she starts running, arm outstretched, towards you, shouting? I would expect the officers to take any action that they felt was appropriate - and that would include shooting her. Elroy's example of Delroy Smellie above helps me to understand why the police feel that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. I cannot believe that Smellie was prosecuted, and I can clearly see that his prosecution had a negative impact on morale. Don --
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,041 posts
117 months
|
Breadvan72 said: The ones that I met seemed to be overly concerned with image, spin, and avoiding being blamed for anything. I have met some impressive middle ranking police commanders. The problem is that these are the ones for whom the promotion procedure was designed. It's a bit like snakes and ladders. The middle rankers who have impressed me the most are those who are going no further and are quite happy about it. In a way you can't blame them. The CC of Sussex was attacked by the Home Sec and eventually dissmissed by him in fact for mere saying that he supported the actions of his officers. About six months later a chief inspector, who was real quality, thought he'd dropped himself in it when he gave a press release which said that the driver of the police vehicle involved in a serious injury RTA involving a child was driving in the correct carriageway whilst the car carrying the child was not. The ironic thing here is that a civilian controller had changed the press release on the serial to read 'apparently driving in the . . .'. He later attended the control room and thanked the controller personally for stopping him being disciplined and his promotion being put back a couple of years and not limiting his potential rank. Yet he had just turned up to a serious injury RTA with a number of casualties, one of whom was a child in a babyseat. He was affected by what he saw and the casual phrase, unimportant when compared to everyting else with the incident, could have cost him dear. So much better to say nothing. Or, as most did, leave it to some other person, of lower rank, to put their neck on the line and give the press what they are after: a headline. Can't believe I'm making excuses for ambitious police officers. I'll have to lie down. I agree with Dibble in that experience in foot patrol, or even a great theif-taker, do not necessarily make good commanders.
|
|
|
Dibble
7,613 posts
109 months
|
don4l said: Dibble said: <snipped for brevity> You see something being passed to the felmale, who again approaches the line and extends her arm into a firing position, holding something shiny...
You've already been on your feet for ten hours, it's eight hours since you last had a drink, it's dark and your visor is misted. You are sweating, dehydrated and physically exhausted as you've been on your feet for 36 of the last 40 hours.
How do you treat that female, as she starts running, arm outstretched, towards you, shouting? I would expect the officers to take any action that they felt was appropriate - and that would include shooting her. Elroy's example of Delroy Smellie above helps me to understand why the police feel that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. I cannot believe that Smellie was prosecuted, and I can clearly see that his prosecution had a negative impact on morale. Don -- The question was how do YOU treat that female? I realise it may not have been clear from the way it was written. Anyway, would you really expect them to take ANY action THEY felt was appropriate? Because surely that will just lead to over reaction, won't it?
|
|
|
XCP
10,484 posts
97 months
|
Is 'Remove uniform and mingle with the crowd' still an accepted tactic? 
|
|
|
don4l
3,314 posts
45 months
|
Dibble said: The question was how do YOU treat that female? I realise it may not have been clear from the way it was written.
Anyway, would you really expect them to take ANY action THEY felt was appropriate? Because surely that will just lead to over reaction, won't it? I don't see that it makes much difference if I misunderstood the question. The answer is the same. If I were the policeman I would use any methods at my disposal. If I were armed, I suspect that I would shoot her. The fact that I think that Harwood was guilty does not mean that I am anti-police. I am not. I do wonder, however, if the Harwood case makes it more likely that we will see more Smellie type cases in future. That would be a very bad thing. Breadvan's description of the political correctness at the higher echelons might have something to do with the problem. Don --
|
|
|
Lost_BMW
10,624 posts
45 months
|
Dibble said: I'm in the "I've no idea whether or not Harwood is guilty as I've not heard/seen all the evidence" camp. The point I was trying to make is that "the public" want the Police to be all touchy freely, right up to the point where the mob's behaviour directly affects them, then they want the entire mob kettling and having seven shades of s t kicking out of each and every one of them by the Police, then each member of the mob putting in prison for ever. The whole problem with "reasonable force" is that it's a subjective test. What I might think is reasonable, you may not (and yes, I'm pretty confident that I can tell the difference between the two extremes you describe, but the problems are where the situation is "greyer"). As an illustrative example: you are part of a police serial, outnumbered by an angry crowd, in an area that has traditionally had difficulties with the police. You're not from that borough, you've been drafted in on mutual aid. Pre deployment, you've had a briefing, including intelligence that young females carry firearms for older male gang members as the females are slightly less likely to be stop searched, following spurious allegations of sexual assault during previous stop searches. In a shield line, you notice one particular female repeatedly approaching colleagues and verbally goading them, then escalating to making gun shapes with her hand and pointing her fingers at a particular officer. This female is backed up by a crowd of a couple of hundred, male and female. There are about 20 Police officers in your serial, none from the local area. The female returns to the mob, missiles are thrown, then the female comes forward again. Your orders are to hold the line to protect an important arterial road junction. The female retreats, and three petrol bombs are thrown, landing near to you. You see something being passed to the felmale, who again approaches the line and extends her arm into a firing position, holding something shiny... You've already been on your feet for ten hours, it's eight hours since you last had a drink, it's dark and your visor is misted. You are sweating, dehydrated and physically exhausted as you've been on your feet for 36 of the last 40 hours. How do you treat that female, as she starts running, arm outstretched, towards you, shouting? Personally I think they should be so equipped and allowed to shoot her, rubber bullet or live ammo, I could not care, frankly. If she (apocryphal, or is she one you know of?) exists and acted like this she presents a clear - if assumed - threat, is clearly involved in illegal activity and incitement to violence so there should be no sanction for taking action to protect the police or other likely victims, whether she is injured or killed. Had it coming in my book. Police and politicians should care less about the media - often there to stoke things up, create/report on controversy or 'interest' - if laws and rules allow some action and it is taken, so be it. Bugger how unpopular it is. Just like they were right to shoot Duggan imho and should be given the go ahead and wherewithal to stamp on his followers. Very right wing, yes, stimulated by rage and frustration at the ability of low life scum to take over areas and create chaos and misery, and probably not welcome to police officers if they think such action might later endanger them - fair enough then, but if they think some form of action is needed to save them at the time they should be allowed to do it. This won't go down well either with the civil liberties plaintiffs but in a situation like these riots I should like to see something like Emergency Powers/ A State of Emergency to be called, something like the Riot Act or a dispersal order to then be made giving the mob x minutes to disperse and then water canons, baton rounds or whatever needed to be deployed. Again, with no sanction or comeback against the police to be allowed, including any civil cases. Also, once such an order has been given the media to be forbidden from being at the scene and removed, any film they secretly take banned from use with criminal sanctions if they show/print them and so less of the whipping up of public opinion against them in the mass media, though how YouTube, Face Book etc. could be dealt with needs further action. Very extreme, true, and I know it will never happen but when mass mobs of organised criminal scum attempt to take over our towns and hurt those employed to protect us then extreme measures should be available to deal with it fast.
|
|
|
RAClNG SNAKE
3,321 posts
101 months
|
Dixie68 said: Water cannons with a dye. Anyone trying to claim the dole while covered in the dye gets feck all & has to help clean up & repair. Or snipers, I'm happy with snipers too. This. Knock the doors of your local low life and you have many collars the next day.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,223 posts
32 months
|
Lost_BMW said: ......
I should like to see something like Emergency Powers/ A State of Emergency to be called, something like the Riot Act or a dispersal order to then be made giving the mob x minutes to disperse and then water canons, baton rounds or whatever needed to be deployed. Again, with no sanction or comeback against the police to be allowed, including any civil cases.
Also, once such an order has been given the media to be forbidden from being at the scene and removed, any film they secretly take banned from use with criminal sanctions if they show/print them and so less of the whipping up of public opinion against them in the mass media, though how YouTube, Face Book etc. could be dealt with needs further action.
Very extreme, true, and I know it will never happen but when mass mobs of organised criminal scum attempt to take over our towns and hurt those employed to protect us then extreme measures should be available to deal with it fast. It appears that you would like to live in a unaccountable tyranny with no right to question the police about their actions, and no freedom of the press. Such places are available to visit, or even move to, if desired, but they don't always let their residents leave.
|
|
|
vescaegg
2,086 posts
36 months
|
I know the OP was several pages back but does anyone know / have a catch up link to the programme they are referring to?
|
|
|
Tant
Original Poster
395 posts
61 months
|
It's on again at 11:20 BBC2, though this might be part 2. Clearly, it's controversial stuff, but watching that stuff last night was shocking...some of the f kers hopefully were tried as far as attempted murder. Told in the words of the officers involved made it truly chilling and how they could stand there and soak up what they did id a tribute to them all. My question wasn't really about numbers or the politics of it all, or even the competency of the police or their commanders....more about what did everyone think they should be equipped with to control such events. Surely there must be something between mostly having to stand back and lethal force? Stimulating debate though...thanks.
|
|
|
FiF
18,389 posts
120 months
|
link to programme referenced in OP herePart 1, the riots in the rioters words can be linked from the above page. Prepare to have to deal with superheated urine.
|
|
