Blair: What sort of policing do we want?
Discussion
Police Commissioner Blair has tonight asked what sort of policing do people want? What better place for him to get some ideas?
I suggest the following for starters:
1. Focus on real criminals not motorists. Motorists might have accidents that cause KSIs but criminals kill and injure deliberately - there is a difference that police seem to have missed
2. Forget this "denying criminals the use of the road" stuff and focus on catching criminals full stop. The road is for all of us, and the hassle we get from the police doing this "denying" is not good for us or the country(CCTV, ANPR, SORN, cameras every 400yds....)
3. Stop being political and start being independent. Government shouldn't try to dictate operations; police should have freedom to operate as they think best in order to achieve the strategic parameters once agreed. For example, government shouldn't be able to dictate a "clampdown" on binge drinking to offset the introduction of an unpopular 24-hour drinking law
4. Work to get the public onside again. Cameras, dawn raids on innocent people, not to mention shoot-to-kill and extreme political correctness, have turned people against the police. This has to be fixed if we want policing by consent
5. Push back on government targets at the highest level, and instead do what is known to be best to achieve the strategic parameters. Trust the experience and expertise of the police themselves, and don't allow meddling from bureaucrats doing party-political bidding.
What else?
I suggest the following for starters:
1. Focus on real criminals not motorists. Motorists might have accidents that cause KSIs but criminals kill and injure deliberately - there is a difference that police seem to have missed
2. Forget this "denying criminals the use of the road" stuff and focus on catching criminals full stop. The road is for all of us, and the hassle we get from the police doing this "denying" is not good for us or the country(CCTV, ANPR, SORN, cameras every 400yds....)
3. Stop being political and start being independent. Government shouldn't try to dictate operations; police should have freedom to operate as they think best in order to achieve the strategic parameters once agreed. For example, government shouldn't be able to dictate a "clampdown" on binge drinking to offset the introduction of an unpopular 24-hour drinking law
4. Work to get the public onside again. Cameras, dawn raids on innocent people, not to mention shoot-to-kill and extreme political correctness, have turned people against the police. This has to be fixed if we want policing by consent
5. Push back on government targets at the highest level, and instead do what is known to be best to achieve the strategic parameters. Trust the experience and expertise of the police themselves, and don't allow meddling from bureaucrats doing party-political bidding.
What else?
Your post - Ist exactly on wish list! I was listening to a debate on Radio 5 whilst driving this morning on crime, sentencing and jail. I left the vehicle for a few minutes and on my return someone was quoting crime figures per 100,000 of population.............They were:
.........400 crimes /100,000 pop.(sorry missed that..maybe Europe?)
Brazil...900 crimes /100,000 pop.
U.S.A....4,000 crimes /100,000 pop.
Britain..11,000 crimes /100,000 pop!........
.....And they're wasting their time and our money chasing motorists for a measly odd few MPH over an already too low artifcial limit!!! 
The word....."priorities"! springs to mind......
.........400 crimes /100,000 pop.(sorry missed that..maybe Europe?)
Brazil...900 crimes /100,000 pop.
U.S.A....4,000 crimes /100,000 pop.
Britain..11,000 crimes /100,000 pop!........
.....And they're wasting their time and our money chasing motorists for a measly odd few MPH over an already too low artifcial limit!!! The word....."priorities"! springs to mind......
Shoot to kill has always existed, in the case of suicide bombers its a good policy, of course the issue is when you have a series of cockups followed by someone feeding giving a final incorrect confirmation of identity leading to death.
At some point we realise we work within a confines of an imperfect system.
Otherwise good stuff, and I must say I was impressed with his lecture, even if I didn't agree with everything, was good to hear it from them and without the bullshit spin and avoidance of issues that always comes about when it comes out of an MP's mouth.
At some point we realise we work within a confines of an imperfect system.
Otherwise good stuff, and I must say I was impressed with his lecture, even if I didn't agree with everything, was good to hear it from them and without the bullshit spin and avoidance of issues that always comes about when it comes out of an MP's mouth.
I would like policing by a police force that recognises itself as a representative of The Law and not, as in many (but not all) cases, The Law itself. I would like an end to 'MP policing' where lying, cheating, self-interested politicians interfere with the implementations of The Law by the police instead of limiting themselves merely to the formation of Laws.
In general, I hold the police in great respect - they do a thankless task for thankless employers amid a thankless public , but I have very little faith in them insofar as my personal safety and position as a member of Society is concerned. As a motorist, I feel that I am viewed as a criminal about to commit a crime and, if they just wait long enough, I can be prosecuted. If I was a burglar, shoplifter or drug-pusher, I would probably feel less threatened with the falling number of prosecutions in these areas. In fact, as a 'scrote', I would probably have more rights than I do now.
I know that there are serving officers who subscribe to this site and I am truly sorry if you find my views offensive, but this is how I and most of my fellow 'citizens' feel these days.
In general, I hold the police in great respect - they do a thankless task for thankless employers amid a thankless public , but I have very little faith in them insofar as my personal safety and position as a member of Society is concerned. As a motorist, I feel that I am viewed as a criminal about to commit a crime and, if they just wait long enough, I can be prosecuted. If I was a burglar, shoplifter or drug-pusher, I would probably feel less threatened with the falling number of prosecutions in these areas. In fact, as a 'scrote', I would probably have more rights than I do now.
I know that there are serving officers who subscribe to this site and I am truly sorry if you find my views offensive, but this is how I and most of my fellow 'citizens' feel these days.
Peter Ward said:
Police Commissioner Blair has tonight asked what sort of policing do people want? What better place for him to get some ideas?
I suggest the following for starters:
1. Focus on real criminals not motorists. Motorists might have accidents that cause KSIs but criminals kill and injure deliberately - there is a difference that police seem to have missed
2. Forget this "denying criminals the use of the road" stuff and focus on catching criminals full stop. The road is for all of us, and the hassle we get from the police doing this "denying" is not good for us or the country(CCTV, ANPR, SORN, cameras every 400yds....)
3. Stop being political and start being independent. Government shouldn't try to dictate operations; police should have freedom to operate as they think best in order to achieve the strategic parameters once agreed. For example, government shouldn't be able to dictate a "clampdown" on binge drinking to offset the introduction of an unpopular 24-hour drinking law
4. Work to get the public onside again. Cameras, dawn raids on innocent people, not to mention shoot-to-kill and extreme political correctness, have turned people against the police. This has to be fixed if we want policing by consent
5. Push back on government targets at the highest level, and instead do what is known to be best to achieve the strategic parameters. Trust the experience and expertise of the police themselves, and don't allow meddling from bureaucrats doing party-political bidding.
What else?
That's a good list. He appears to have provided an e_mail address: commissioner@met.police.uk This list would be a good one to send him.
1) To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and by severity of legal punishment.
2) To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3) To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4) To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5) To seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7) To maintain at all time a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9) To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Anyone recognise those?
2) To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3) To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4) To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5) To seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7) To maintain at all time a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9) To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Anyone recognise those?
docjan said:
Shoot to kill has always existed, in the case of suicide bombers its a good policy, of course the issue is when you have a series of cockups followed by someone feeding giving a final incorrect confirmation of identity leading to death.
At some point we realise we work within a confines of an imperfect system.
Otherwise good stuff, and I must say I was impressed with his lecture, even if I didn't agree with everything, was good to hear it from them and without the bullshit spin and avoidance of issues that always comes about when it comes out of an MP's mouth.
Bullshit spin and avoidance of issues ? Is this the Ian Blair who attempt to cover up the shooting of de Menezes ?
autismuk said:
Shoot to kill has always existed, in the case of suicide bombers its a good policy, of course the issue is when you have a series of cockups followed by someone feeding giving a final incorrect confirmation of identity leading to death.
At some point we realise we work within a confines of an imperfect system.
Otherwise good stuff, and I must say I was impressed with his lecture, even if I didn't agree with everything, was good to hear it from them and without the bullshit spin and avoidance of issues that always comes about when it comes out of an MP's mouth.
Bullshit spin and avoidance of issues ? Is this the Ian Blair who attempt to cover up the shooting of de Menezes ?
Meh, shit happens and theres no doubt that the killing itself was a terrible mistake caused by a convergence of stupidity and mistakes... then they let the papers continue on with speculation that suited them (whilst they were creating a report which was to be released that detailed their culpability... but was leaked a day before to make it seem like they wern't going to come out with it).
So yes, admitting mistakes is important, as is cold hard realism, the man died because of several mistakes, solve the issues relating to those mistakes where possible.
docjan said:
Otherwise good stuff, and I must say I was impressed with his lecture, even if I didn't agree with everything, was good to hear it from them and without the bullshit spin and avoidance of issues that always comes about when it comes out of an MP's mouth.
Whoops, wrong Blair!
>> Edited by julianc on Thursday 17th November 12:52
>> Edited by julianc on Thursday 17th November 12:53
[quote=docjan
Meh, shit happens and theres no doubt that the killing itself was a terrible mistake caused by a convergence of stupidity and mistakes... then they let the papers continue on with speculation that suited them (whilst they were creating a report which was to be released that detailed their culpability... but was leaked a day before to make it seem like they wern't going to come out with it).
So yes, admitting mistakes is important, as is cold hard realism, the man died because of several mistakes, solve the issues relating to those mistakes where possible.[/quote]
This will be the same blair who wrote to the Government saying that he didn't feel the law that required him to immediately and fully co-operate with the IPC following the shooting dead of a member of the public applied to him. That he wouldn't follow it and that they would be well advised to change the law going forward.
Meh, shit happens and theres no doubt that the killing itself was a terrible mistake caused by a convergence of stupidity and mistakes... then they let the papers continue on with speculation that suited them (whilst they were creating a report which was to be released that detailed their culpability... but was leaked a day before to make it seem like they wern't going to come out with it).
So yes, admitting mistakes is important, as is cold hard realism, the man died because of several mistakes, solve the issues relating to those mistakes where possible.[/quote]
This will be the same blair who wrote to the Government saying that he didn't feel the law that required him to immediately and fully co-operate with the IPC following the shooting dead of a member of the public applied to him. That he wouldn't follow it and that they would be well advised to change the law going forward.
Einion Yrth said:
1) To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and by severity of legal punishment.
2) To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3) To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4) To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5) To seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7) To maintain at all time a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9) To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Anyone recognise those?
Sir Robert Peel's Nine Points of Policing.
Its amazing how many of them are ignored or abused these days isn't it?
sixspeed said:
Serve the Public Trust
Protect the Innocent
Uphold the Law.
-andy-
But there is the crux of the problem. The current laws are totally stupid. They are serviced by perverts and invented by the criminal minds in parliament. Uphold Blairs law? No thanks just get rid of it.
To be fair to out BiB this forum is watched by nutty control freaks (YES I MEAN YOU YOU USELESS B*STARDS. CANT YOU SHOOT YOURSELVES SO WE CAN GET MORE DECENT COPPERS RATHER THAN DOSSERS IN OFFICES !) who seem to feel it necessary to "talk" to some of our BiB whenever they make what are almost always rather balanced harmless comments.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff