From The Telegraph Today ...
Discussion
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/06/11/dl1101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/06/11/ixopinion.html
The police must start listening
(Filed: 11/06/2006)
The use of 250 officers ten days ago to arrest two men believed (wrongly) to be in possession of a chemical bomb was not a sensible use of police resources. But at least the idea of trying to eliminate a terrorist threat is one that the public can support.
Usually, however, there is a vast gulf between what senior police officers see as their priorities and what the public think those priorities ought to be. The police often seem to think that pursuing drivers, or people who insult the Welsh, or who take robust action against intruders into their homes, is more important than aggressively tackling criminal gangs, burglars and violent thugs. The public, of course, takes the opposite view - particularly when, as Christopher Booker notes today, they are told by their local police force that they will have to pay extra even to get "community support officers" to patrol their neighbourhood.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, aware of the growing popular discontent with the failure of the police and justice system to stem the rising tide of violent crime, is to re-launch Labour's "Respect" Agenda (did any Government campaign ever have such a fatuous title: and after a full year's failure, wouldn't it have been better simply to abandon it?). As we report today, the slogan Mr Reid has concocted to sum up his campaign is "Don't moan - take action".
It will infuriate millions of people. When the public complain about the police, as millions of us do, they are not moaning: they are trying to get the police to do their job of tackling crime on the streets. Moreover, when people do "take action" themselves - because the police are unavailable to protect them - the results are often appalling.
Elaine Holland's life was made a hell because she challenged the gang of bullies in her neighbourhood. When she signed a complaint so as to get an Anti-Social Behaviour Order restricting the movements of the gang's leader, she was surrounded by thugs shouting: "We're going to burn you out, you bitch." Elaine Holland was at least able to move: when Lawrence Hart confronted two burglars who had broken into his house, they killed him.
The problem is not the failure of the public to "take action", but the failure of the police and the courts to deal with criminals. Every week, there is an example of a law-abiding citizen who is murdered by someone who has either been let out of prison early, or not sent there at all, but instead given a sentence of "supervision in the community". One of Mr Hart's killers had been given a "community sentence order" for theft just two days before he broke into Mr Hart's house.
If John Reid is serious about tackling crime, his first task is to get more officers on the streets who will arrest more criminals. David Cameron has suggested that police priorities should be set by local communities. He's right. Until that happens, we will be ill-served by our constabulary - and we will have every right to complain.
The police must start listening
(Filed: 11/06/2006)
The use of 250 officers ten days ago to arrest two men believed (wrongly) to be in possession of a chemical bomb was not a sensible use of police resources. But at least the idea of trying to eliminate a terrorist threat is one that the public can support.
Usually, however, there is a vast gulf between what senior police officers see as their priorities and what the public think those priorities ought to be. The police often seem to think that pursuing drivers, or people who insult the Welsh, or who take robust action against intruders into their homes, is more important than aggressively tackling criminal gangs, burglars and violent thugs. The public, of course, takes the opposite view - particularly when, as Christopher Booker notes today, they are told by their local police force that they will have to pay extra even to get "community support officers" to patrol their neighbourhood.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, aware of the growing popular discontent with the failure of the police and justice system to stem the rising tide of violent crime, is to re-launch Labour's "Respect" Agenda (did any Government campaign ever have such a fatuous title: and after a full year's failure, wouldn't it have been better simply to abandon it?). As we report today, the slogan Mr Reid has concocted to sum up his campaign is "Don't moan - take action".
It will infuriate millions of people. When the public complain about the police, as millions of us do, they are not moaning: they are trying to get the police to do their job of tackling crime on the streets. Moreover, when people do "take action" themselves - because the police are unavailable to protect them - the results are often appalling.
Elaine Holland's life was made a hell because she challenged the gang of bullies in her neighbourhood. When she signed a complaint so as to get an Anti-Social Behaviour Order restricting the movements of the gang's leader, she was surrounded by thugs shouting: "We're going to burn you out, you bitch." Elaine Holland was at least able to move: when Lawrence Hart confronted two burglars who had broken into his house, they killed him.
The problem is not the failure of the public to "take action", but the failure of the police and the courts to deal with criminals. Every week, there is an example of a law-abiding citizen who is murdered by someone who has either been let out of prison early, or not sent there at all, but instead given a sentence of "supervision in the community". One of Mr Hart's killers had been given a "community sentence order" for theft just two days before he broke into Mr Hart's house.
If John Reid is serious about tackling crime, his first task is to get more officers on the streets who will arrest more criminals. David Cameron has suggested that police priorities should be set by local communities. He's right. Until that happens, we will be ill-served by our constabulary - and we will have every right to complain.
This has long been the popular (and correct IMHO) view. However for every person getting heard saying stuff like this there seem to be a dozen hand wringing sandalists crying "human rights", "minority oppression" and the like.
The first thing to do is have a proper root and branch reform of this rotten european human rights issue. It seems that until that cancer is cut out of the system, everybody's hands are tied. Except the criminals' that is.
SM
The first thing to do is have a proper root and branch reform of this rotten european human rights issue. It seems that until that cancer is cut out of the system, everybody's hands are tied. Except the criminals' that is.
SM
In conjunction with some other stuff, I agree.
Can we have some reality in the Home Office. It's all very well for them to sit there and say "Do something" but in practice, if you "do something", you get the Linda Walker treatment (if you aren't a thug), assuming you don't get beaten up of course.
This isn't an issue of whether Walker was in the right or the wrong, but an issue with the mentality of those who decided to persecute her (and ignore the original aggressor). There are umpteen Linda Walkers and similar, (usually) on a lower level, but it's personally destructive and disproportionate.
This occasionally reaches levels which are simply insane.Any teacher or carer knows it, but this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/we has to be an all time low in "a result at all costs" mentality. The supposed victim (having previous said nothing happened !) volunteering to be a defence witness you think might just be a clue : what the hell, let's go with it anyway.
This sort of stupidity is very common though not as common as the casual violence, thuggery and crime which appears to be unimportant.
Lying and spinning about it in the papers is worse of course. It's not so much the idiocy of one raid or the dumb actions of some copper ; this happens ; it's the almost expectation and entitlement that it will be spun and covered up ; in the DeMenezes case forging the paperwork to "make it look right".
Whoever did that (IMO) should be locked up not just given "words of advice" ; why isn't that perverting the course of justice ?
The witless obsession with the media. Same paper, same page I think ; Iain Duncan Smith writes.
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/06/11/do1101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/06/11/ixopinion.html
"Whatever takes place, the police will feel that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I have some sympathy for them, but many of their problems are of their own making. Why does the Met need to undertake this ludicrous briefing war through the airwaves? It is so undignified and makes the police look untrustworthy.
In this age of 24-hour television, the rules that used to govern operations in the past still stand. Be sure, act swiftly, act silently and explain only when the operation ends without off-the-record briefings. The media can wait until something of truth and substance needs to be said.
We all desperately want the police and security forces to succeed - our well-being depends on it. "Spin" will not help them succeed. Perhaps the best advice for them is that of Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly and carry a big stick."
Can we have some reality in the Home Office. It's all very well for them to sit there and say "Do something" but in practice, if you "do something", you get the Linda Walker treatment (if you aren't a thug), assuming you don't get beaten up of course.
This isn't an issue of whether Walker was in the right or the wrong, but an issue with the mentality of those who decided to persecute her (and ignore the original aggressor). There are umpteen Linda Walkers and similar, (usually) on a lower level, but it's personally destructive and disproportionate.
This occasionally reaches levels which are simply insane.Any teacher or carer knows it, but this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/we has to be an all time low in "a result at all costs" mentality. The supposed victim (having previous said nothing happened !) volunteering to be a defence witness you think might just be a clue : what the hell, let's go with it anyway.
This sort of stupidity is very common though not as common as the casual violence, thuggery and crime which appears to be unimportant.
Lying and spinning about it in the papers is worse of course. It's not so much the idiocy of one raid or the dumb actions of some copper ; this happens ; it's the almost expectation and entitlement that it will be spun and covered up ; in the DeMenezes case forging the paperwork to "make it look right".
Whoever did that (IMO) should be locked up not just given "words of advice" ; why isn't that perverting the course of justice ?
The witless obsession with the media. Same paper, same page I think ; Iain Duncan Smith writes.
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/06/11/do1101.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/06/11/ixopinion.html
"Whatever takes place, the police will feel that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I have some sympathy for them, but many of their problems are of their own making. Why does the Met need to undertake this ludicrous briefing war through the airwaves? It is so undignified and makes the police look untrustworthy.
In this age of 24-hour television, the rules that used to govern operations in the past still stand. Be sure, act swiftly, act silently and explain only when the operation ends without off-the-record briefings. The media can wait until something of truth and substance needs to be said.
We all desperately want the police and security forces to succeed - our well-being depends on it. "Spin" will not help them succeed. Perhaps the best advice for them is that of Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly and carry a big stick."
The case of the headmistress is typical of the situation we are in, teachers training are brainwashed into the give only love mentality. So we now have two of her employees both prepared to say she hit the kiddy ( they may have been correct)and to see her take the consquences where is loyalty now. So how long was she suspended, how long did the CPS and the police investigate? All because some kid is uncontrolable, I would be getting rid of those two for starters in my school and compensation for what they had accused her of. But in this world we now live in if you are reported incorrectly for something the person who makes all the fuss walks away with the innocent victim punished. Madness shear madness
If the Police have information that there is a chemical bomb at an address & the occupants are involved in terrorist activities, if they have no reason to doubt that source, should they do nothing just in case there isn't ?
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
"The Police had information about this & did nothing, it's scandalous they should have been straight around there raiding the place."
We don't know the full information that the Police have, undoubtedly they'll be a complaint & investigation, so let's see what comes out of it instead of jumping on the media bandwagon.
Same with the DeMenzes case, let's wait & see what those who have all the information from all sources conclude.
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
"The Police had information about this & did nothing, it's scandalous they should have been straight around there raiding the place."
We don't know the full information that the Police have, undoubtedly they'll be a complaint & investigation, so let's see what comes out of it instead of jumping on the media bandwagon.
Same with the DeMenzes case, let's wait & see what those who have all the information from all sources conclude.
vonhosen said:
We don't know the full information that the Police have, undoubtedly they'll be a complaint & investigation, so let's see what comes out of it instead of jumping on the media bandwagon.
Same with the DeMenzes case, let's wait & see what those who have all the information from all sources conclude.
I think that's part of the problem though - the public no longer have confidence that they will be told the truth either by politicians OR senior police officers.
In times gone past there was an assumption that the 'Estalishment', for want of a better term, had integrity, sadly there have been so many examples of 'selective recall' by those in charge that that assumption has gone.
I, for one, would be more than willing to wait for the outcome of any enquiry if I felt we WOULD be told the truth.
BB
vonhosen said:
If the Police have information that there is a chemical bomb at an address & the occupants are involved in terrorist activities, if they have no reason to doubt that source, should they do nothing just in case there isn't ?
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
Of course they should act on that information, but why were ten times too many officers employed to deal with it? I want them to make a show and make a statement that we don't *uck about when it comes to matters of terrorism, but in this case, unfortunately, I think they've shot themselves in the foot. I do strongly support the police and believe operations like this need to happen, but for gods sake this smacks of incompetence given the resources available.
deeps said:
vonhosen said:
If the Police have information that there is a chemical bomb at an address & the occupants are involved in terrorist activities, if they have no reason to doubt that source, should they do nothing just in case there isn't ?
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
Of course they should act on that information, but why were ten times too many officers employed to deal with it? I want them to make a show and make a statement that we don't *uck about when it comes to matters of terrorism, but in this case, unfortunately, I think they've shot themselves in the foot. I do strongly support the police and believe operations like this need to happen, but for gods sake this smacks of incompetence given the resources available.
You'd have a lot of experience in planning counter terrorist operations then & some idea of the alleged threat they were up against to say how many officers they should have on the operation ? The numbers of officers engaged on duty in the operation would also have to cover any contingency that the device would be detontated by the alleged terrorists when Police affected entry. Just how many officers in your expereience do you think would be necessary to deal with the mass panic & confusion in the local community caused by such an event, maybe the evacuation of hundreds incase of secondary devices or danger following the primary detonation & the securing of a large cordoned scene etc ?
Perhaps instead you'd like to be one of the fearful ones effecting the actual entry (not knowing if you'd come home that day) & having no immeadiate back up if injured because it was decided we should only have a small number of officers, just in case a large number would make us look incompetent should nothing be found & it affect the fragile sensibilities of some. That small number though, being the opposite of what your experience in planning such operations tells you that you need in a worst case scenario ?
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 12th June 06:52
vonhosen said:
If the Police have information that there is a chemical bomb at an address & the occupants are involved in terrorist activities, if they have no reason to doubt that source, should they do nothing just in case there isn't ?
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
"The Police had information about this & did nothing, it's scandalous they should have been straight around there raiding the place."
We don't know the full information that the Police have, undoubtedly they'll be a complaint & investigation, so let's see what comes out of it instead of jumping on the media bandwagon.
Same with the DeMenzes case, let's wait & see what those who have all the information from all sources conclude.
Imagine if a chemical bomb does go off & the fact that Police had this information came to light later, what will the call be then ?
"The Police had information about this & did nothing, it's scandalous they should have been straight around there raiding the place."
We don't know the full information that the Police have, undoubtedly they'll be a complaint & investigation, so let's see what comes out of it instead of jumping on the media bandwagon.
Same with the DeMenzes case, let's wait & see what those who have all the information from all sources conclude.
Of course they should. I think it's highly likely that the 'reliable evidence source' is as reliable as the 45 minute WMD claim, but it's debatable.
What isn't acceptable is the lying, spinning, and fabrication and amendment of evidence to cover the screw up up.
vonhosen said:
You'd have a lot of experience in planning counter terrorist operations then & some idea of the alleged threat they were up against to say how many officers they should have on the operation ? The numbers of officers engaged on duty in the operation would also have to cover any contingency that the device would be detontated by the alleged terrorists when Police affected entry. Just how many officers in your expereience do you think would be necessary to deal with the mass panic & confusion in the local community caused by such an event, maybe the evacuation of hundreds incase of secondary devices or danger following the primary detonation & the securing of a large cordoned scene etc ?
Actually if they arrested the blokes some distance from their home at a reasonable time following surveillance this would minimise the risk of things like dead man's switches or remote detonation. They could evacuate the area (peacefully) and then go in the building at a reasonable time.
If there is a risk (and there is, but it's low level) that there could be a booby trap in the house (low level because it's too easy to set off) then having lots of Police Officers enter would seem to be a good way of getting lots of Police Officers killed.
I seem to recall bomb disposal being done by one person not by having twenty PCs around a bomb.
I tend to think this is more to do with PR than reality. Which is a sad comment on the way the 'service' is run. It's too simple to squawk 'terrorism' as an excuse all the time.
spaximus said:
The case of the headmistress is typical of the situation we are in, teachers training are brainwashed into the give only love mentality. So we now have two of her employees both prepared to say she hit the kiddy ( they may have been correct)and to see her take the consquences where is loyalty now. So how long was she suspended, how long did the CPS and the police investigate? All because some kid is uncontrolable, I would be getting rid of those two for starters in my school and compensation for what they had accused her of. But in this world we now live in if you are reported incorrectly for something the person who makes all the fuss walks away with the innocent victim punished. Madness shear madness
The particular problem in this case is that neither the child or anyone else made a complaint - the child was interviewed about it - and the child who was supposed to have been hit was prepared to be a defence witness to say that nothing happened.
I have no problem with reporting of potential child assault at all. However, this is simply insane ; the wosr of a bad bunch.
autismuk said:
Actually if they arrested the blokes some distance from their home at a reasonable time following surveillance this would minimise the risk of things like dead man's switches or remote detonation. They could evacuate the area (peacefully) and then go in the building at a reasonable time.
If there is a risk (and there is, but it's low level) that there could be a booby trap in the house (low level because it's too easy to set off) then having lots of Police Officers enter would seem to be a good way of getting lots of Police Officers killed.
I seem to recall bomb disposal being done by one person not by having twenty PCs around a bomb.
I tend to think this is more to do with PR than reality. Which is a sad comment on the way the 'service' is run. It's too simple to squawk 'terrorism' as an excuse all the time.
Personally, I accept a lot of what you say but regarding the numbers of officers involved, have you been party to the community impact assessment that would have been carried out with the race relations and diversity officers in conjunction with community leaders before the operation and during the planning of the operation?
Edited by mg6b on Monday 12th June 09:25
mg6b said:
Personally, I accept a lot of what you say but regarding the numbers of officers involved, have you been party to the community impact assessment that would have been carried out with the race relations and diversity officers in conjunction with community leaders before the operation and during the planning of the operation?
I'd be surprised if there was one. In fact, in terms of such a 'serious threat' it seems extremely unwise to do so, as you only need one weak link in the chain. I would suggest the problem is the Race Relations and Diversity officers and the apparent special treatment. This breeds a sense of entitlement to special treatment IMO, which makes the problem worse.
I can't help wondering if Community relations would have been helped by the two men being quietly detained at an appropriate moment away from the house, then those living in the immediate area being politely informed by Police that they had to leave their homes for a short period due to the need to search a local property, as they had received a report that it might be being used by terrorists and may possibly contain a weapon. Inform the media of such and then *shut up*.
Seems slightly more sensible than going in all guns blazing at 4AM ; I cannot see the necessity for such action. There's too much of this stuff done for effect.
If there was such (and doubtless the week was spent desperately searching for anything that could be twisted into a "chemical weapon" a la ricin) then it'd look good on the news
Edited by autismuk on Monday 12th June 09:59
cuneus said:
The police are not really at fault (except for the usual misinformation i.e. claiming that one brother shot the other). The police are already trying to distance themselves from the faulty intelligence
As I said before imagine if this happened to your family
As I said before imagine if this happened to your family
I have deep concerns about the use of whistleblowing and informing in this country. (This is not the Police specifically) ; the amount of potential to damage someone's life on a whim is unnerving. There appears to be absolutely *no* analysis or thought, just jump in with both feet.
vonhosen said:
You'd have a lot of experience in planning counter terrorist operations then & some idea of the alleged threat they were up against to say how many officers they should have on the operation ?
I, and I'm sure many others here, have enough experience of logistics and planning - showbiz in my case, so realtime with a very public failure mode - to know that throwing bodies at a problem mostly adds points of failure (and forensic noise in an instance like this).
The police have a thing about numbers ... I mean it took 50 police officers to remove Brian Haw's protest placards and banners and almost all of Brian's personal possessions from Parliament Square in the middle of the night didn't it? 50 officers ... unbelievable.
Now personally I don't agree with his protest but I will fight to the end for his right to protest...
www.parliament-square.org.uk/pnews.html
Now personally I don't agree with his protest but I will fight to the end for his right to protest...
www.parliament-square.org.uk/pnews.html
Edited by The Wiz on Monday 12th June 17:26
mg6b said:
Personally, I accept a lot of what you say but regarding the numbers of officers involved, have you been party to the community impact assessment that would have been carried out with the race relations and diversity officers in conjunction with community leaders before the operation and during the planning of the operation?
I can't believe they'd be that naive to involve community leaders.
If they did, no wonder that reportedly nothing was found.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff