The Police need their hands untied..
Discussion
Esseesse said:
There is much to criticise in that article by Hitchens. It must be remembered he is a political animal and not an independent reporter of events. Firstly, to suggest that the policing in the country somehow 'worked' better than it does today shows some ignorance of what went on in the 60s and 70s. There are lots of books out there to show how bad policing was. The faults were ignored and became entrenched. Corruption was endemic, and that's across all forces and not, as some suggest, just the metropolitan areas.
He quotes the New York 'obvious and common sense' zero tolerance experiment. It was heralded as a major success story. It was compulsory reading for all officers at the time. It did indeed make sense and proved that the person who got promoted on the strength of it probably deserved all that extra money. But it was make-believe. Once the circumstances were revealed the conclusions collapsed. It is a wonder that he doesn't know this. I would have bet that he must have. He uses the 'common sense' justification. That's child-like and if it is the best he can do, it damages his arguments.
He suggests that the USA method of policing at least locally gives better results. That's wrong on many levels. We can see on YT and threads on these forums where some of the problems are.
He quotes resources without any reference to demand. Such writing is hardly worth the reading but let's try one aspect. He suggests, and in all seriousness, that the level of drug taking in this country is down to the police amalgamations in the 60s and 70s. There's no justification for this apart from the common sense and obvious fact that one went up at the same time as the other was brought in.
In all honesty, that is nonsense. It is not even an argument.
I like the bit about The Times not publishing something he wrote.
It is one of his many political blogs. It comes to no justifiable conclusion.
I would like there to be an officer on foot patrol in my area. I'm not sure I want to pay for it though. He states there were no foot patrols after 1966 and to prove it he pointed out that a police officer who said there were was on panda patrol in 1968. Well I'm convinced, despite patrolling on foot for 2 years in the 70s and meeting quite a few officers on foot patrol in the Met district. But as I was on mobile patrol at the time I suppose these don't count.
I am a major supporter of The PACE Act. It has its faults, some quite obvious, but as a package it revolutionised the service. It had a cost but it was a bargain.
I once had 13 prisoners in one 14 hour shift on a Saturday. I took three to court on the following Monday. The rest were dealt with over the following two weeks. I used to prosecute my own offences, without the assistance of lawyers, and I was well known at my two local magistrates courts. Times change and the current system is much safer and more just. However, I would probably have been taken off the street after my first arrest to deal post PACE. I was gaoler for a period and I had a number of prisoners who knew, were convinced, they were going to get a beating because that's what happened in their local area. One wouldn't eat because the last time he'd been nicked he'd vomited and nearly choked.
I don't agree with Hitchens' politics, but that's personal. I don't think his writings are worthy of publication, and that I can justify.
Derek Smith said:
Esseesse said:
There is much to criticise in that article by Hitchens. It must be remembered he is a political animal and not an independent reporter of events. Derek Smith said:
However, I would probably have been taken off the street after my first arrest to deal post PACE.
Please can you expand on this and explain the impact of PACE on you?They're all focused on crime demand. Most policing demand isn't crime and has been the largest area of growth in modern policing. They also fail to appreciate the fundamental change in the way society works. Mobile phones and other areas of access have greatly increased demand.
ks'.He's got quite the ego.
Elroy Blue said:
Esseesse said:
You quote a Peter Hitchens article to support your case? It's not even worthy of the title 'utter bks'.Hitchins said:
Each time I criticise this vast, unresponsive nationalised industry, the Police, a strange thing happens. There is almost total silence from police chiefs themselves, who are well aware of what they are doing and don’t care what I say about it. There is silence from the politicians whose actions have created this very considerable national failure.
Oh sorry, Peter. Don't the police chiefs and politicians realise how important you are? How dare they not respond directly to you. Hitchins said:
Crime, disorder, vandalism and drug abuse have continued on their upward spiral, along with the prison population, ever since.
superkartracer said:
Telegraph said:
The murder rate in England and Wales has risen sharply for the first time in a decade at a time when police have diverted detectives to investigate historic sex abuse and allegations against tabloid newspapers.
Brilliant casual connection. Detectives 'diverted' to investigate allegations against the media = increased murders. Esseesse said:
Please can you expand on this and explain the impact of PACE on you?
The idea of The PACE Act was to ensure an even-handed prosecution of offenders, to take many decisions away from the police with regards whether a case went to court, and to limit the chances of abuse of authority. In all these things it has had a high degree of success. However, one 'penalty' has been the need to record every little move.
Let's take a chap I nicked for trying to overturn a police van - an offence - with me and a prisoner inside - a serious offence. I took both prisoners to the cells, documented them with regards their name, address, property and brief outline of offence, and then returned to the streets.
In normal circumstances I would have continued but there were major public order problems with officers being attacked - I got off lightly - and as the evening went on I nicked a few more.
Each time I completed a pocket note book entry. I returned to the nick to document - photo, prints, descriptive form, caution statement, and charge sheet. As I had a number of prisoners, I was given the help of a probationer to document them. Two or three had already been bailed and some of the others were involved in jobs that had a different OIC, so all I had to do was complete an arrest statement. Every now and again there was a call for urgent assistance and I would leave my documentation to assist other officers.
Nowadays it is slightly different. I would not have been allowed to just dump the prisoner on the gaoler and clear off. I'd have to remain with the prisoner. I'd go to a central 'lock up', queue for attention as each prisoner would have to be dealt with by a custody officer or deputy and on a busy night waiting could take an hour or more. Then there are forms to fill in. Umpteen forms. There has been a certain streamlining but demands from CPS aren't always easy to fit into police systems.
The arresting officer would be 'off the street' for hours. There would be the tape-recorded interview - a good thing in most police officers' eyes but time consuming. There would be various reports to the CPS.
Action has been taken, I'm assured, to limit the paperwork but the police has little control over demands from the Home Office and CPS. In the case of the latter, they are also undermanned and need to limit the demands on their time. They can push it downwards, the police are bottom rung.
I went to court with just the descriptive form, the CRO print out, any statement under caution, the charge sheet and my pocket note book entry. So not even an arrest statement. If the offender agreed to 'summary trial today' I'd prosecute by giving the brief facts and then the offender would be asked to give a statement or to clarify matters by the bench, or his/her brief. If I thought I had sufficient evidence, if the person pleaded NG I'd ask for trial and then cross examine the offender - now that was fun. I'd write the case result on the charge sheet, fill in various boxes, then write a brief note to be attached to the case papers and a 'flimsy' to go to CID if a crime. Job done. Three hours work for a result.
Nowadays there'd been a transcript of the pertinent features of the tape-recorded interview that remains unread in normal circumstances. There would be a bulging file. There would be receipts, reports and rewritten documents.
My job at one time post PACE was to write a short resume of case papers for certain files. I could often manage to reduce 40 documents to three paragraphs and the norm was that the CPS brief would take the case to court on the strength of them. But someone's time had been taken up with the other dozens of sheets of paper.
Pre PACE the system was open to abuse of course, and was abused, of that there is no doubt - there's an excellent book on the matter, can't remember the title though - and there's no way I would want to be arrested for any offence under the old system. It costs though.
The Hitchens article mentions numbers. Demand has increased tremendously through all levels. I was on a firearms incident where we went into three premises, guns drawn, and made some arrests. We found the biggest cannabis farm that had been discovered in the Met district up until then - not our target so it was passed to someone else. The report of the incident ran to four pages. It was dictated to me - I'm a touch typist - by my chief inspector and that was all that was required. I had to photocopy it. Nowadays there would be a little team set up to document the decisions made at the time, the views of the cadre, tac advisor, the silver and bronze commanders and, no doubt, Henry the cat's actions.
On top of that we had overtime. For a period of 8 months or so I worked all but three days a 4-week month, and on a couple of the 'days off' I stayed on to prosecute my offences at court. I also worked 12-14 hour days over the weekends, which started on Thursday and ended Sunday morning.
When I was in CID I used to get to work about an hour and a half before rostered time in order to finish paperwork. As I walked in through the front door I was sent out again by the duty uniform inspector to deal with a 'minor assault'. This turned out to be GHB. I was given an index number by witnesses but it was wrong. So for about a week or so I turned up two hours before time to stand at the location of the assault and look for a similar car. I didn't charge overtime but would have done if I'd nicked anyone or spotted the car.
It is a bit different now with overtime. When we got the extra police in the early 80s we were not given sufficient funding and so overtime had to be cut. My inspector worked out that this increase actually meant that we had fewer officers on patrol. It wasn't by many, 1 a shift I suppose, but the increase in staff meant a drop in patrolling officers. Got to laugh.
I'm not criticising PACE. I, like many/most officers of my age viewed it as a glorious revolution. It has its faults but then so does everything.
It's the same with the police as a whole. There is much wrong with it, and most/all officers would agree I think that there are some simple changes that would make it much more efficient. However, progress is restrained by regulations, the Home Office and other agencies. I know a fair bit about the way other countries in the EU, and a few of God's Own Countries are policed and out of all of them I'd put England/Wales as the one I'd pick to be arrested in if I was innocent or guilty. So it might have its faults, does have in fact, but for all that, it's better than most.
Derek Smith said:
Esseesse said:
There is much to criticise in that article by Hitchens. It must be remembered he is a political animal and not an independent reporter of events. <big snip>
I don't agree with Hitchens' politics, but that's personal. I don't think his writings are worthy of publication, and that I can justify.
You are a highly articulate man Derek, and can gain input (presumably it would have to be on the quiet), from active members of the force to inform Hitchens on his arguments.
He himself says (paraphrasing) the senior management won't respond to him, and the Police men and women on the street simply respond with anger to his suggestions.
But if he receives little or no input, his views and arguments are unlikely to alter substantially.
He can be quite persuasive, but the further from the truth he remains, the less seriously those in power are likely to take him (in my view of course).
La Liga said:
Telegraph said:
The murder rate in England and Wales has risen sharply for the first time in a decade at a time when police have diverted detectives to investigate historic sex abuse and allegations against tabloid newspapers.
Brilliant casual connection. Detectives 'diverted' to investigate allegations against the media = increased murders. wc98 said:
B'stard Child said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Well if BIB don't deal with this little st, how long before a disgruntled biker or cat owner tracks him down?
What's he doing to cats?t, how long before a disgruntled biker or cat owner tracks him down?
B'stard Child said:
wc98 said:
B'stard Child said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Well if BIB don't deal with this little st, how long before a disgruntled biker or cat owner tracks him down?
What's he doing to cats?t, how long before a disgruntled biker or cat owner tracks him down?
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Telegraph said:
The murder rate in England and Wales has risen sharply for the first time in a decade at a time when police have diverted detectives to investigate historic sex abuse and allegations against tabloid newspapers.
Brilliant casual connection. Detectives 'diverted' to investigate allegations against the media = increased murders. 
La Liga said:
he casual connection invites the reader to infer it when he writes "when". If not, what's the relevance of them being in the same sentence?
Nevertheless, he did not say what you suggested he said. Your inferences are your own but please don't put words into others' mouths.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
he casual connection invites the reader to infer it when he writes "when". If not, what's the relevance of them being in the same sentence?
Nevertheless, he did not say what you suggested he said. Your inferences are your own but please don't put words into others' mouths.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I quite enjoy his writing, even when disagreeing (as I've said a few times), but to the point; he is clearly not intentionally foolish, and society, social behaviour, crime are all things about which he feels strongly on a personal level and writes about frequently.
You are a highly articulate man Derek, and can gain input (presumably it would have to be on the quiet), from active members of the force to inform Hitchens on his arguments.
He himself says (paraphrasing) the senior management won't respond to him, and the Police men and women on the street simply respond with anger to his suggestions.
But if he receives little or no input, his views and arguments are unlikely to alter substantially.
He can be quite persuasive, but the further from the truth he remains, the less seriously those in power are likely to take him (in my view of course).
He's an odd chap. Socialist ranter and then changes belief 180 degrees but still with the same aggression. An atheist of some fervour and then a christian, again just the belief changes and not the attacking form. It strikes me as false. I could be wrong of course, but can one change to that extent? You are a highly articulate man Derek, and can gain input (presumably it would have to be on the quiet), from active members of the force to inform Hitchens on his arguments.
He himself says (paraphrasing) the senior management won't respond to him, and the Police men and women on the street simply respond with anger to his suggestions.
But if he receives little or no input, his views and arguments are unlikely to alter substantially.
He can be quite persuasive, but the further from the truth he remains, the less seriously those in power are likely to take him (in my view of course).
His support of right wing politics in the USA lacks conviction. He seems to say things for the sake of it. If there's a policy that most educated people criticise for evidenced reason, he will become rent-a-pen for support.
There's the more famous brother syndrome that is tempting to put on him. Chris was an atheist and left wing, not to mention being a much more successful author and possibly journalist. He was certainly known world-wide. Peter's style of argument, overtalking and abrupt, seems to have been copied from Chris.
He's an excellent writer for a journalist. Whilst that seems damning by feint praise, it is not that usual for someone churning out galleys of copy to be so consistently well written. But his arguments since his conversions seem laboured and poorly thought out.
Some of it is deceitful I think. In the article quoted he brought up the 'zero tolerance' in New York, the implied suggestion being that it was a total success. Yet even a brief internet search would show the faults with the experiment. A division in my force tried a three months period of ZT and it was a failure almost from the start. The reason being that the stats were honest and there was no massive increase in staff, at least according to me.
There is, I think, a role for ZT in policing. I'm not sure my plans would run now with such low levels of patrolling officers, but I did try it in Brighton (based on a sergeant's plan) when I ran a shift and it was successful. It even rated articles, that's plural, in the local paper and two phone calls from the national media which came to nothing. But as done in New York it was a dead loss. My view of Hitchens, P. is that he either knew this in which case the use of it as support to his argument was dishonest, or that he didn't know about it in which case he was dreadfully unprofessional.
But the high quality of English day in and day out is impressive. However:
There was a chap who wrote a weekly column for Police Review, the must have magazine for any bobby who took his job seriously. He wrote under the pen name of C. H. Rolph, but was C. Hewitt. He was prolific, writing books, for periodicals and on the subject of law. The quality of his writing, including the grammar as well as the way it was formed, was impressive. I was a big fan, as were most who read him. His arguments were clearly written and convincing. He had a lovely voice - I phoned him once - talking exactly as he wrote, and was gentle in the way he presented himself and his opinions. You might not always agree with him, but you felt better for reading his views.
Hitchens, P. suffers in comparison, and by some distance.
Perhaps I should not judge him against the best,
On the rejection, or rather ignoring, of his comments by rank and file, I might agree that most officers might be reacting to tone. Whilst most will not do so when dealing with a suspect, and will concentrate on content, maybe they will not do so from someone educated.
One thing, though, that upsets me and many other past and present officers is that there is much that is wrong with the service at present, most of which is beyond the control of rankers, and certainly out of touch of the federated ranks. If someone comes up with ideas and suggestions on how to improve the service, they will listen but can't react. However, with the likes of Hitchens, P. critics tend to pick on things which are either of little concern to the day to day running of the police, or are an attempt to change something that is not wrong.
We can't go back to the old style of policing. Nor do we want to. It was corrupt at all levels to a high degree. There were beatings. There was ill treatment of prisoners, there was a casual approach to certain offences. There was a laziness and low level of demand (the latter which, thankfully, I enjoyed in the 70s) meaning that performance levels overall were low. There were some great coppers, if the stories I was regaled with were true - which some must have been - but it was amateurish.
Major enquires are run in a manner that drags police from all over the world to learn. I had visits to the ID unit from four different EU police forces, including a very high level group from Germany the Monday following their 5 - 1 defeat in football. That was fun. I would assume that the Met had many more. We used to lead in many aspects of policing. I assume and hope we still do.
To go back would be to underperform at all levels. Hitchens, P.'s arguments are shallow and ill-formed.
speedyguy said:
I assume you're taking the pish ?? All I saw and see from working in and with government etc is they need to get their act together and rationalise things a lot further rather than expecting an ever growing money tree and political capital needs to be be removed from the decision making process but unfortunately I don't see that happening as lots of people want to "justify their jobs" heck why would turkeys vote for Christmas.
I think the tories have been quite clear they intend to reducespending, and despite borrowing still being high, we can only assume it would have been higher if spend wasn't reduced.I'm unsure how we could remove "political capital" from the decision making process? As a democracy, it is kinda important.
I would agree people justifying their job is human nature: whilst the private sector can use the black and white of profit motive to allocate resources, it becomes harder in a sector where outcomes are subjective. Indeed, the whole point of political representation is to bring accountability into areas where judgements have to be made.
Changing topic slightly
Derek,
You mentioned the police system could work a lot more effectively with a few changes, but was held back by the home office.
If you don't mind, what sort of areas does this include? Do you think ita case of the HO maintaining a role for itself?
Ian
Ian Geary said:
Derek,
You mentioned the police system could work a lot more effectively with a few changes, but was held back by the home office.
If you don't mind, what sort of areas does this include? Do you think ita case of the HO maintaining a role for itself?
Ian
The HO sees its role as control, as it does this by demands by publishing HO Guidelines which forces must comply with, and by imposing systems. You mentioned the police system could work a lot more effectively with a few changes, but was held back by the home office.
If you don't mind, what sort of areas does this include? Do you think ita case of the HO maintaining a role for itself?
Ian
It goes all the way through the various departments and functions of the service. Two (there were more) experiences I had in my last five years: a gift of laptops from BA to the training department at Gatwick was blocked by the HO. BA and BAA could, I was told, be charged for the services we provided but if we did that, the money would go, by a tortured route, back to the government coffers and end up cost the force more than the value of the items. Laptops, and other gifts, were seen as a way around this.
Video identification; the HO had an expensive, slow and poor quality system that all forces used. With new regs coming in it would have been a nice little earner. Some suggest the new regs were ‘convenient’ for the HO as it was a way to reduce the cost of the service to the government. The police paid a lot of money for goods which cost little. I suggested setting up our own in-house system. The costs for hardware and volunteers would be, and were, paid for within a year. The decision, middle management responsibility, had to go up as far as the chief constable because of the political fallout it would cause. But he was going no further so he gave the green light.
The service could do with a review as to functions. It needs an overhaul from top to bottom. There has been no reform since The PACE Act. That was good but was 30 years ago. Slashing the budget is not reform.
Some decisions would be difficult so governments don’t want to do anything that might cost votes. For instance, should the police have anything to do with road traffic regulation? Should patrol/response be local and crime/major incidents be national? Should licencing and such be taken away (very few forces bother nowadays anyway). Should warrants be dealt with by police?
A fully trained police officer is an expensive item. You ask how much it costs credit card companies to train their enquiry staff. Or rather, ask them how much they save by poaching police officers.
There was one problem which was a perennial one.
I was in charge of driver training. I had a set number of course which I spread among divisions. Divisional commanders would phone me to say that for that 6-month period they had too few, say, response courses. Their problem was that they gave their best officers the courses. These would sit the sergeants’ exam or put in for a specialist unit, and the expensive course was wasted.
The options were to put less effective officers in patrol cars, or stop the best officers getting promoted or going into specialities. It is an ineffective way of policing.
I was a supporter of the idea of PCSOs. However, it was badly planned and due to government intervention has become something of a waste. The money could be put to much better use, such as having PCSOs.
The problem with the police service is the same one as with the NHS, schools and so much else: politics.
Many officers in my time, and since, reckon that there is a major problem with having a fully effective, superbly trained, targeted police service; there would be no need for much more privatisation.
Sooner or later there will be private police officers patrolling the streets.
The system is funny though. I was told, when in charge of the driver training unit, that we were in the bottom 10% of forces for police accident, polaccs. Do something about it I was told by the person in charge of such stats.
I went to a force that was near the top and they told me that they did not record accidents on police premises, smashed windscreens, nor criminal damage. A good day's work.
I reported to the superintendent, saying that a minor change would put us comfortably in the top 10%, and second in the 'family' of similar forces. My report was filed in the shredder and I was thanked and told never to utter a word about it. The following year we had a significant but not massive improvement in our polacc percentages. The next year we were well above the average - what most forces aimed for on all metrics - and the third year, there we were in the top 10%.
We could not got from top to bottom in one year as someone would smell a rat. The HO or the HMI would have dug deep.
I don't know what the answer is. I have some ideas, but don't have proof either way was to whether they would be effective. I know that many forces across the world look(ed?) to English/Welsh policing for ideas and methods. But there are problem areas, too many. The police are stuck with little freedom of movement. It is up to the government. But they, it seems, don't want to do anything.
So money is wasted. So areas that could be usefully attacked are ignored. We have expensive officers ticking boxes; lots and lots of boxes. We have officer typing reports. Sending letters, making phone calls.
A lot was done in my day. We had a number of civvies who would perform function where a warrant card was not required. Retired officers would do jobs, such as warrants, for little money. Slashing budgets necessitated sacking man of the civilian support staff. Farcical.
Derek Smith said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I quite enjoy his writing, even when disagreeing (as I've said a few times), but to the point; he is clearly not intentionally foolish, and society, social behaviour, crime are all things about which he feels strongly on a personal level and writes about frequently.
You are a highly articulate man Derek, and can gain input (presumably it would have to be on the quiet), from active members of the force to inform Hitchens on his arguments.
He himself says (paraphrasing) the senior management won't respond to him, and the Police men and women on the street simply respond with anger to his suggestions.
But if he receives little or no input, his views and arguments are unlikely to alter substantially.
He can be quite persuasive, but the further from the truth he remains, the less seriously those in power are likely to take him (in my view of course).
You are a highly articulate man Derek, and can gain input (presumably it would have to be on the quiet), from active members of the force to inform Hitchens on his arguments.
He himself says (paraphrasing) the senior management won't respond to him, and the Police men and women on the street simply respond with anger to his suggestions.
But if he receives little or no input, his views and arguments are unlikely to alter substantially.
He can be quite persuasive, but the further from the truth he remains, the less seriously those in power are likely to take him (in my view of course).
Derek Smith said:
He's an odd chap. Socialist ranter and then changes belief 180 degrees but still with the same aggression. An atheist of some fervour and then a christian, again just the belief changes and not the attacking form. It strikes me as false. I could be wrong of course, but can one change to that extent?
I knew an Anglican Minister that gave up his prosperous Saskatchewan farm when he "received his calling". He paid to attend college and become a quite poorly paid minister.As for losing ones Trotskyism; as Hitchens tells us, he was a foreign correspondent in Moscow for a decade. If that doesn't cure one of a desire for totalitarian socialism, I should think nothing would
And indeed incline a person to hold forth regularly and well against it!But while it is a fine thing to be against something, surely an alternative must be presented to complete the argument.
Derek Smith said:
His support of right wing politics in the USA lacks conviction. He seems to say things for the sake of it. If there's a policy that most educated people criticise for evidenced reason, he will become rent-a-pen for support.
Perhaps. It may be the natural contrarian.I haven't followed his writing long enough to form an opinion there, but I will hold the thought in mind.
Derek Smith said:
There's the more famous brother syndrome that is tempting to put on him. Chris was an atheist and left wing, not to mention being a much more successful author and possibly journalist. He was certainly known world-wide. Peter's style of argument, overtalking and abrupt, seems to have been copied from Chris.
That is indisputable as far as it goes yes.I often wondered if the brotherly debates, though sufficiently heated and vigorous, were something of an attempt on Christopher's part to introduce his brother to a more receptive pro Christianity American audience. To be fair though, the debates drew predominately CHitch fans rather than PHitch fans. It was often a hard ride for him in those debates.
Derek Smith said:
He's an excellent writer for a journalist. Whilst that seems damning by feint praise, it is not that usual for someone churning out galleys of copy to be so consistently well written. But his arguments since his conversions seem laboured and poorly thought out.
Some of it is deceitful I think. In the article quoted he brought up the 'zero tolerance' in New York, the implied suggestion being that it was a total success. Yet even a brief internet search would show the faults with the experiment. A division in my force tried a three months period of ZT and it was a failure almost from the start. The reason being that the stats were honest and there was no massive increase in staff, at least according to me.
There is, I think, a role for ZT in policing. I'm not sure my plans would run now with such low levels of patrolling officers, but I did try it in Brighton (based on a sergeant's plan) when I ran a shift and it was successful. It even rated articles, that's plural, in the local paper and two phone calls from the national media which came to nothing. But as done in New York it was a dead loss. My view of Hitchens, P. is that he either knew this in which case the use of it as support to his argument was dishonest, or that he didn't know about it in which case he was dreadfully unprofessional.
The New York example has long been held up as a prototype.Some of it is deceitful I think. In the article quoted he brought up the 'zero tolerance' in New York, the implied suggestion being that it was a total success. Yet even a brief internet search would show the faults with the experiment. A division in my force tried a three months period of ZT and it was a failure almost from the start. The reason being that the stats were honest and there was no massive increase in staff, at least according to me.
There is, I think, a role for ZT in policing. I'm not sure my plans would run now with such low levels of patrolling officers, but I did try it in Brighton (based on a sergeant's plan) when I ran a shift and it was successful. It even rated articles, that's plural, in the local paper and two phone calls from the national media which came to nothing. But as done in New York it was a dead loss. My view of Hitchens, P. is that he either knew this in which case the use of it as support to his argument was dishonest, or that he didn't know about it in which case he was dreadfully unprofessional.
The place must be a paradise by now
Derek Smith said:
But the high quality of English day in and day out is impressive. However:
There was a chap who wrote a weekly column for Police Review, the must have magazine for any bobby who took his job seriously. He wrote under the pen name of C. H. Rolph, but was C. Hewitt. He was prolific, writing books, for periodicals and on the subject of law. The quality of his writing, including the grammar as well as the way it was formed, was impressive. I was a big fan, as were most who read him. His arguments were clearly written and convincing. He had a lovely voice - I phoned him once - talking exactly as he wrote, and was gentle in the way he presented himself and his opinions. You might not always agree with him, but you felt better for reading his views.
Hitchens, P. suffers in comparison, and by some distance.
Perhaps I should not judge him against the best,
I was unaware of C. H. Rolph / C. Hewitt. A peak at the wiki indicates a quite impressive career.There was a chap who wrote a weekly column for Police Review, the must have magazine for any bobby who took his job seriously. He wrote under the pen name of C. H. Rolph, but was C. Hewitt. He was prolific, writing books, for periodicals and on the subject of law. The quality of his writing, including the grammar as well as the way it was formed, was impressive. I was a big fan, as were most who read him. His arguments were clearly written and convincing. He had a lovely voice - I phoned him once - talking exactly as he wrote, and was gentle in the way he presented himself and his opinions. You might not always agree with him, but you felt better for reading his views.
Hitchens, P. suffers in comparison, and by some distance.
Perhaps I should not judge him against the best,
Like most people I suspect, I take only a passing interest in how the police work until it is likely to affect me personally, or should somehow appear to have become very wrong.
Then, all my dealings with your former colleagues have been polite and professional, even when it was my heavy foot that brought me to their attention.
Derek Smith said:
On the rejection, or rather ignoring, of his comments by rank and file, I might agree that most officers might be reacting to tone. Whilst most will not do so when dealing with a suspect, and will concentrate on content, maybe they will not do so from someone educated.
One thing, though, that upsets me and many other past and present officers is that there is much that is wrong with the service at present, most of which is beyond the control of rankers, and certainly out of touch of the federated ranks. If someone comes up with ideas and suggestions on how to improve the service, they will listen but can't react. However, with the likes of Hitchens, P. critics tend to pick on things which are either of little concern to the day to day running of the police, or are an attempt to change something that is not wrong.
No doubt. We see enough heavily biased and uninformed opinion in these forums I think to prove that last sentence will often be the case.One thing, though, that upsets me and many other past and present officers is that there is much that is wrong with the service at present, most of which is beyond the control of rankers, and certainly out of touch of the federated ranks. If someone comes up with ideas and suggestions on how to improve the service, they will listen but can't react. However, with the likes of Hitchens, P. critics tend to pick on things which are either of little concern to the day to day running of the police, or are an attempt to change something that is not wrong.
Unfortunately, it is principally journalists (of one media or another) who inform public opinion.
Aside from people that actually believe what politicians tell us
Derek Smith said:
We can't go back to the old style of policing. Nor do we want to. It was corrupt at all levels to a high degree. There were beatings. There was ill treatment of prisoners, there was a casual approach to certain offences. There was a laziness and low level of demand (the latter which, thankfully, I enjoyed in the 70s) meaning that performance levels overall were low. There were some great coppers, if the stories I was regaled with were true - which some must have been - but it was amateurish.
Agreed, though I don't think that was quite the point he was making in the article, it did contain an element of that.Derek Smith said:
Major enquires are run in a manner that drags police from all over the world to learn. I had visits to the ID unit from four different EU police forces, including a very high level group from Germany the Monday following their 5 - 1 defeat in football. That was fun. I would assume that the Met had many more. We used to lead in many aspects of policing. I assume and hope we still do.
To go back would be to underperform at all levels. Hitchens, P.'s arguments are shallow and ill-formed.
I recall (correct me if I am mistaken), that elsewhere you stated that you would prefer to be arrested in Britain than anywhere else in the world. (nothing we should know about is there? To go back would be to underperform at all levels. Hitchens, P.'s arguments are shallow and ill-formed.
)But in seriousness, I would suggest that is probably quite a reasonable position these days.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff