Coppers confessing

[Derek Smith]

On Ch4 last night there was a programme about the 'good old days' of policing, when coppers were 'respected', unlike now.

It was an encapsulation of attitudes and behaviour of the Met police during the 60s, 70s and a little into the 80s, a time of massive change for the police in this country.

Two things struck me:

The whole concentration of the programme was on the Mets, as if they epitomised the service as a whole, despite being a minority, and

There were casual confessions of brutality, even torture, from coppers who bemoaned the loss of what they called respect. It seems they rejoiced in their brutality and the fear is caused. Even the excuse of golden reason corruption, i.e. it being done in order to find the truth in serious cases, was contradicted.

The casual and studied racism of the service in those days was broached.

There were a couple of younger officers with a more current ethos and attitude, but hardly a counterbalance.

It contradicts the stories of the good old days quite comprehensively.

There were specific problems with county forces in those days, but this were different to those of the Met.

The problem with the Met is its sheer size. It was, and remains, all but unmanageable. We all, no doubt, look forward to these problems being eliminated when, as promised, the 43 forces are amalgamated into a dozen or so super forces.

I've said it before but it bears repeating: now has never been a better time to be arrested for an offence in this country, whether guilty or not.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/confessions-of/... For those who missed it.

Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 20th November 09:16

[Derek Smith]

La Liga said:

I did think of you when I saw it. How accurate did you find the stories?

The Met is the centre of the universe as far as policing is concerned.The rose-tinting by many, who foolishly think it was better back then, really don't know how much better many things are these days.

I remember now-retired Inspector tell me when he first joined, that someone had come into the police station to complain. The result was the person who complained being dragged down some stairs and put in a cell for several hours until he decided he didn't want to complain again.

What was said came as no surprise to me although the beatings were administered covertly in my day and PCs were more proprietary about their prisoners. Certainly I never had one of mine physically abused. That said, I was interviewed by the Countryman enquiry about a prisoner who was beaten so badly that he died and was later dropped onto a road in front of a bus to cover it up. Or so I was told. That was in 1977 for the murder, and 81 - 2 for my interview.

I’d not actually had anything to do with the prisoner.

There was the ‘suicide’ of the pop’s banker, Calvi, around the time of my interview.

So many of the corrupt officer felt they could get away with anything they wanted but by that time, it had changed.

But the heavies were still there in my time and there is no doubt in my mind that beatings went on, although I have no evidence of it. It was all hearsay.

Respect and fear: why is there the problem in differentiation?

I agree about the Met being the only force in the country.

What didn't come over was how welcomed taped interviews were by the working PCs. The ones who objected to their introduction were the criminal lawyers. CCTV - much later I know - was similarly something of a relief for most.

I had a number of dealings with foreign prisoners, those from certain civilised European countries which were held up as fine examples of probity 15 years ago. They were, almost to a man, shocked at how well they were treated over here. We have a couple of regular translators. We used to put them in with the prisoners for ten minutes before the interview and they would explain procedures. You could tell - it was on CCTV but not audio - that they didn't believe what they were told.

One prisoner refused to talk to one woman because she was obviously a police stooge. After all, she was telling lies.

The comparison between the police in London in the 70s and in counties in the 80s and subsequently is faintly farcical.

That said, there was more casual racism in Brighton. There was a religious do at the Brighton Centre, all alleluias and praise him for everything nice sot of thing. We were in a van driving down West Street and a black youth in white shirt, blazer, pressed trousers, patent shoes and wearing a tie, was pointed to by one PC who asked: What's he up to. I'd just transferred and laughed as I thought it was a joke, but he and the rest of the crew honestly viewed him as suspect.

Whilst the diversity training was criticised in the programme, attitudes have changed considerably.

One of, if not the, the last ones I was sent on was organised by a university for post graduate research. One chap, black, had been stopped so many times that the procedure was stopped by the police there and we all gave the chap advice on what to do. I was the most senior officer present and I said that I felt obliged to to take it further if the chap would cooperate. The two PCs were shocked as was the sergeant.

The woman running the course tried to intervene but we told her that we'd been presented with an allegation, supported by dates and notes taken at the time, of behaviour that was verging on criminal so had to do something.

The chap said that 'our', that's the police's, comments and actions showed that for us there was no point in the course. There was no false response from the police. In fact it carried on during the lunch break. The PCs were aghast and had I not been there, with the aged sergeant, they probably would not have believed that the police would behave that way.

As we left the truncated course the comparison with the 70s came to mind.

We had some illegals at Gatwick who'd come over in a container. They'd gone through Germany, Belgium, France and Italy before miraculously being discovered by the driver just as the lorry was going to go through X-ray.

I asked them as they were drinking tea in the nick, made by the PCs, and eating sandwiches my guys had shared with them (including the super's biscuits - the bloke was largely detested), why they hadn't got out as soon as they entered the EU - which their country now has. The chap I asked pointed around and asked me if I honestly thought that people, especially illegals, would be treated with consideration by the police in any of the other countries.

He told a few stories he'd heard from others who'd got into one particular country. Yet it would not have occurred to any of my officers, the ones with self-loading rifles held across their chests, to do anything other than treat them as they would anyone else. And as they hadn't eaten for two or three days, nor had a hot drink, the solution was obvious.

I think everyone shared their sarnies and had it not been night duty and the cooking facilities closed (night duty officers are like the little elves who repair shoes for the cobbler in the mind of the higher ranks. They don't need feeding) they would have cooked a hot meal.

But police officers nowadays are racist, brutal and hate all foreigners. Unlike in the old days when they we so well respected - presumably because they would beat the st out of every prisoner.

You blokes still working are, without a doubt, the most trustworthy and hardest working officers there have ever been in the service. I'd take my helmet off to you, but I've since retired to live on the gold plated pension that was given to me. And all I had to do was pay in 12%+ of my gross pay (in real terms) for 30 years for it.

Best of luck to you.

[Derek Smith]

Shelsleyf2 said:

Derek Smith said:

You blokes still working are, without a doubt, the most trustworthy and hardest working officers there have ever been in the service. I'd take my helmet off to you, but I've since retired to live on the gold plated pension that was given to me. And all I had to do was pay in 12%+ of my gross pay (in real terms) for 30 years for it.

Best of luck to you.

I have limited contact with the police, I do have an old friend ex constable who in the good old days would go out and enjoy a drink or many and drive home, got stopped once and fell out the car as the police opened his door, managed to produce his warrant card and was helped back into his seat and sent on his way. Pretty sure this would not happen now. It does seem however that the police complaints commission is all about protecting the police...the number of deaths in custody that result in no significant action/prosecutions damages credibility and respect.

Re your pension do you have any idea on the sum of money that would be required to buy an annuity to pay your pension? If you joined at 20 retired at 50 and lived to 8o you would be drawing a pension for the same number of years you contributed, do you seriously believe paying 12% of your earnings would fund that?. I assume your pension is linked to the current pay rate? Just for comparison if you retired at 55 with £1,000,000 in your fund you could have a pension of £31,000 rpi linked. If you believe by contribution 12% of your salary for 30 years you built up £1,000,000 in a pot then your seemingly sarcastic comment is well made.

Always the 20-year-old.

I was headhunted by a well-known credit card company. I was a sergeant.

The deal they offered was for me to work an extra 2-3 years for an identical pension. Further, the conditions of employment were better, with limited 'shift' work, i.e. out of hours. There was a car included, share options, bits and pieces thrown in. Further, had I contributed to a pension fund, instead of the government just keeping that money back from the imprest, the extra years would have not been required. I would have had an office, my own phone, and if promoted, a secretary, although shared.

I didn't take it but a chap who did found that his pension was as good as the police pension was when he put his card in. Further, the enhance interest rates he'd been able to access had enabled him to buy a couple of houses abroad that paid for themselves and in those days had some value.

Don't forget that in the pay review in the 70s it was decided to reduce the award in order compensate for the pension, which at that time made a profit for the government, and continued to do so until the late 90s.

The pay for the credit card company was greater, as were the benefits, as were the conditions. There was considerably less danger as well.

I chose to stay with a role that I enjoyed and am fairly pleased I did.

The pension was used as a way to keep officers in post. If you left early all you got back was what you supposedly paid in, without any interest. Yet officers still left, and in droves at one time. When unemployment goes up then the leaving rate drops so the pension works to that extent. We have a queue of suitable people wanting to join the police nowadays but that was hardly the norm in my time. The pension was featured high in the recruiting literature.

So the cost of the pension to the officer has to include the lack of other benefits available to people in a similar role in private industry, a lower wage because of the pension, the risk to the pension if someone wanted to move jobs, and the tremendous loss of value of the pension if an officer, for instance, was injured on duty to the extent that they were unable to work but would be likely to be able to work at an unspecified time in the future.

The pension with the credit card company included insurance for inability to work. Details now lost in the fog of time.

Shelsleyf2 said:

It does seem however that the police complaints commission is all about protecting the police...the number of deaths in custody that result in no significant action/prosecutions damages credibility and respect.

As I said, the CCTV in cell blocks was not so much welcomed as demanded by police officers. Normally, the reasons there are few prosecutions/discipline is that CCTV provides a welcome defence for the persons with responsibility for the prisoners.

I remember once that a busy cell block had had cctv cameras installed and a blind spot was discovered. The force were reluctant to spend more money on a camera but the custody officers demanded it.

CCTV in cell blocks came at the same time as significant reduction in complaints of ill-treatment by officers. This could be because the officers knew that had to behave or, many officers suggested, because the offenders could not, normally under instruction, lie about what had happened to them in the cell block.

On top of that, and not mentioned by those who report on such matters, the police have been lumbered with responsibility for those who require specialised treatment. Many deaths are to those with severe mental problems or bad health and the police lack the ability, and the training, to be able to cope with any degree of professionalism.

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

Derek Smith said:

the pension, which at that time made a profit for the government, and continued to do so until the late 90s.

This isn't the first time you've made this disingenuous claim.

The pension scheme never 'makes a profit', as you put it. In common with all 'pay in now, take out later' schemes, more is paid in during the early stages than taken out; this is very different to making a profit.

Disingenuous? Then it must be as if anyone knows about what the word means it must be you.

You know exactly what I mean and you know I am right.

The government reduced payments from police officers in the expectation, that proved correct up until the middle 90s, that the 'average' officer would claim back less than he received after retirement. And that is without taking interest into account. Up until the middle 80s the difference was tremendous. 'A scandal' is the way it was described.

So by any unbiased and sensible reckoning, the government made a profit, one which they spun to make out that it didn't even draw even.

On top of that, the pay was reduced because of this false benefit. On top of on top of that the percentage taken was more than the pensionable amount.

I'll keep on saying the truth until those who, for whatever personal reason, keep saying that the police over the years were not fleeced.

And I forgot to mention that the ones who reaped all the benefit were those of high rank as they got more than they paid in in those days. So the poor bloody PC got a lot less than the average.

No need to believe someone who, when he was thinking of leaving the service, decided to do some of his own research and not just go by those who had no idea what they were talking about.

[Derek Smith]

George111 said:

Derek Smith said:

And all I had to do was pay in 12%+ of my gross pay (in real terms) for 30 years for it.

Still very, very cheap for what you get. Try getting a private pension which matches yours !

If you read my post, you will see that I did, from a major credit card company.

Not only that, one person who did jump proved that it delivered on its promise.

There are major downsides to the old police pension as well. Get injured and you could lose all advantages and you end up much, much worse off than you would with a private pension.

[Derek Smith]

Bigends said:

Those currently on Police pensions can have no complaints. Signed up for mine at 19 and picked it up on my 49th birthday -ive never taken it for granted though paid well for it over the years. There have been a number of changes since in relation to contributions - now 14% - and officers have to serve longer to get less.
In relation to the documentary I worked through those days - good old days for many cops - not so good if you were on the other end of an arrest in many cases though there was more discretion not to arrest for a lot of minor stuff. Discretion that was taken away for many years in order to hit targets - now - in the main abolished in many forces.
Pay was god awful for my first five years and we had to serve under some fairly draconian discipline regs. Probabtioners could be sacked within the 1st 18 months with no appeal - this was open to abuse by management. Different society back then which had a very different Police service

I had two children in the 70s and had I had a third I would have been able to claim supplementary benefit (or called something similar) despite working all but three days a month, and on occasion more.

The problem was that the forces had to take virtually anyone who applied. One bloke who joined with me had pre-cons for what amounted to GBH with intent. This when he was in the army in Germany. No wonder there was so much corruption.

On the entrance exam I got the highest score ever recorded for the force (up until then) - graduates didn't have to sit it. That is frightening.

When I was a teenager, I was coming back home on the late night bus through Lewisham from the Richardson's pub. A Met car leapfroged the bus and stop any black from getting on it. Reap the whirlwind.

I have to say, though, I enjoyed those days. It seemed that I was working all the time with little or no paperwork. Lots of prisoners, lots of excitement, lots of good officers to work with. I have been to court many times (we used to prosecute our own offences) with the only paperwork being my note book. The problem was that those who wanted to fit someone up had a clear field.

One ex-Met DC who transfered to the City in the expectation that it would be less corrupt (that would be funny isf it wasn't so tragic) said that he was kicked out of the department when two others noticed a suited drunk gent get out of a cab with a full wallet. They were discussing rolling him. He then went up to the chap and put him in another taxi to take him home.

Other forces in Europe and around the world have been reticent to follow the lead given by English/Welsh police in combating corruption, but in many ways they were worse. I had friends who ran a licensed cafe in Rome. They had to pay the police and the local authority protection money, and feed and water (although never just water) any officer who came in, at any time, day or evening, on duty or off.

It was accepted.

What irritated me, and still does to an extent when the ignorant comment on here, was that CCTV and tape-recorded interviews were introduced with the full support of the vast majority of police officers. We all wanted it, yet the press (mainly left wing in those pre Cameron days) reports were that it was being forced on us. The prisoners supported it in the main and the only ones against it were the briefs.

If CCTV out of the streets had been introduced in the 70s without police knowledge then many officers would have been convicted of all sorts of offences. When it was introduced in Brighton the PCs loved it. Complaints dropped, or were withdrawn after the inspector said those magic words: 'I'll just pull the tapes of the incident and then get back to you.' Their response was always a laugh. They would be called spy cameras but it meant that PCs could do their job without worrying about spurious complaints. They would ask for a camera to focus in on them.

Yet, despite having the most honest police forces we've ever had in this country, and the treatment of prisoners being monitored 24/7, they've never been so vilified. Now, of course, it is all political. The massive reductions in police numbers and ability to prosecute crime being a deliberate policy of this government, or this PM rather, has to be justified somehow.

In reply to an earlier post, part of the reason there are few prosecutions of those taking care of prisoners (normally not police officers of course, apart from the custody officers) is that the CCTV is their saviour. As they knew it would be.

When things changed it was nice not to have to watch your back for the dishonest. Only the ambitious were a problem then, with their carelessness with others' careers when they saw an opportunity for advancement. But that's another story.

There was a good book about corruption in the City of London Police in the 70s and 80s. Only £2.

[Derek Smith]

Eclassy said:

Intresting and an eye opener. I am too young to know and wasnt even here but where there any/many revenge attacks on police by people (both innocent and crim) for ill treatment by the corrupt/criminal police back in the day?

I ask this because the thoughts that ran through my head after my experience with the police would have landed me in prison for a whole life term if they had been carried out.

Bear in mind there was no physical violence in my case, just a loss of liberty and money stolen but I felt so strongly about the experience so I can imagine how angry an innocent person will feel if they are stitched up and brutalized as a bonus

CCTV is a blessing but in recent experience it has become obvious that police will go to great lenghts to withold CCTV that implicates one of theirs.

The thin was that the police and criminals were hand in glove, literally working together. There were three jobs that were organised in the City and MPD: Williams and Glynn payroll, Telegraph payroll and Daily Mirror murder/payroll. For the last one every CID officer, plus the operational permanently armed patrol unit (me), were having a scenes of crime lecture organised by the senior CID ranker - and yes, that is a spelling mistake. The only CID out on the street were two aides to CID working with Shaw Taylor on Police 5. Expendable one assumes.

My unit was detailed to be on patrol as there was good information - excellent as it turned out - that an armed raid was going to take place in the City one morning.

There was a joke, not very funny, and in fact tragic. However, it went this way: You couldn't get a CID on the third Thursday of every month as that was Lodge night. But it didn't matter as you could not get a villain either.

Ha bloody ha if you were not one of the in crowd.

[Derek Smith]

We were going to do an armed raid on premises in the Met. However, the way in was dangerous for us.

We were deployed around the premises in cover and the inspector wandered off. Minutes later the phone rang inside and we all waited for the bloke to appear. But no show so we just protected the 'search team'.

My assumption was that the inspector had got the number and phoned it but no. It was rather more subtle than that.

He'd phoned the local CID, told them that we were about to go to the premises and advised them to keep clear.

And then the phone rang.

[Derek Smith]

jimbop1 said:

Sounds pretty exciting to me. I take it you weren't part of the in crown and now quite bitter?

I was never asked to join. I was once criticised by one DC, involved closely in a murder some say, by:

I thought you were a wide boy, now I find you as wide as narrow tape.

That came about when I had a bloke in court for an indictable offence so had to have a CID officer with me. The bloke was going NG but there was ample evidence. So no problem. I had produced a briefing doc for the DC. He turned up, glanced at it then wrote on the back of it, passed it to me and said: There's your pocket book entry.

I refused. There was an argument that was disturbing more for what was not said. Then the comment as above.

The bloke then took out two or three note books and copied from the brief I'd produced. As he was doing so the defendant's brief came it. I thought: Well that's the job gone. But the brief and the DC shook hands, the DC continued to write in his PNB and the brief was shown my briefing doc.

It was apparent that the bench knew what was going on and there were abnormalities with the evidence, but no one cared.

The problem was that there was no one to go to. The court would make their own records, most of those present would be in the frame so they'd lie.

I went to an inspector I thought was straight but it turned out that I was wrong.

Nowadays, although this could not happen now I know, I would go to any inspector, put a piece of paper in front of him or her and know that the report would go further. Then you were targeted.

I was personally threatened and so was my family. I was going to leave the job at that time but a chief super helped me out. Lovely bloke. Ex navy and nothing and no one stopped him doing what he thought was right.

My one regret is that I never thanked him enough.

[Derek Smith]

Mk3Spitfire said:

No. I do not agree. Actually, let me rephrase that. I agree it SEEMS that a lot of wrongdoing by one is being covered up. It SEEMS this way, because the press love reporting this kind of story. If you were to compare it to the amount of things that aren't covered up, I'm confident it would be a tiny fraction. People tend to read the Daily Fail and assume that because one of their over dramatised articles makes the most of one or two occasions, that the problem is huge. It's not. There are thousands and thousands of police officers in the UK. A minute amount of them are corrupt and dishonest. Problem is, people like our learned friends on here, can only focus on these money making, propaganda-esque stories as it reinforcers their hatred/negative image of the Police.

I've been on all sides of discipline enquiries. The one common thing in all of them was that prosecution witnesses were police officers. For my discipline hearing, the complainant was a police officer.

Please note the lack of commas.

[Derek Smith]

julianc said:

Don't forget Derek's book - well worth the read. I'm still waiting for the sequel - eh, Derek?

My apologies. Another book came along and took longer than I thought - twice as long - to get it where I wanted it. (Not interested in Mercedes SLKs are you?). There's still a bit more to go 'till it's good enough.

So probably March/April next year.

Thanks for asking.

[Derek Smith]

photosnob said:

I am still yet to hear a single reason why forcing officers to have a relatively cheap camera attached to them hasn't been brought in yet. Nor am I seeing any justification for having none cctv cells or areas in custody suites.

I'm a firm supporter of cameras on all officers.

Over ten years ago the subject was broached in my old force after the Mets considered it. However the on-costs were considerable.

There was the infrastructure. Storage, itemising, other similar stuff. Whilst it seems a minor matter, then consider a force of 3000 officers, the majority of which would require a camera, each working a 40-hour week. Not insuperable, and nowadays the swingeing cuts would lower the cost considerably, if not entirely.

At the time the CPS demanded a full transcript of tape recorded interviews. So there would be a considerable requirement for documentation of all the tapes. If six officers turned up to a scene, there would be six videos.

Nothing that could not be done of course but the police have just had their budget slashed by in excess of 20%. On top of that, there's another 20% to come. There is no money to maintain present standards. The idea of fat being available to be cut is laughable. They've already slashed skin. With the further cut, it's the bone that's got to go so investment just to placate the public would be impossible to support. There is no business case.