A Royal Commission into the police

A Royal Commission into the police

Author
Discussion

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
There is an attempt to force a debate on how the police service should be organised and what it should be responsible for. See: https://www.change.org/p/maria-caulfield-mp-it-is-...

It's something that should have happened 20 years ago. Governments shy away from such things because it exposes what the state of the service is. Police should be a back-stop, the last resort when all else fails, but it is now the first call for those who should be adequately dealt with by other services.

If you care about how you are policed, are concerned that it is not an effective body, or want to ensure that the resources meet the demands, then sign it.

Or (to whom it may concern - names available) you could just go on moaning on thread after thread.


Drumroll

3,738 posts

119 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
So how would a royal commission for the police resolve all the other social problems the country faces?

Don't get me wrong, it is not right that a suicidal teenager has to be held in a police cell as there is nowhere else for them to go. But just defining that as not a police role won't make the problem go away.

One thing that would help everyone is if we looked at the culture of binge drinking in the UK. Just think how much police and NHS resources could be freed up if our towns and cities were not full of P1ssheads

davidball

731 posts

201 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Derek Smith on this. There should be a Commission to investigate the roles and behaviour of the Police Forces (I take issue with describing them as services). Coincidentally I was just penning my views on today's revelations about the MET and the National Police Chiefs Council. See Police LIES on this forum.

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
davidball said:
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Derek Smith on this. There should be a Commission to investigate the roles and behaviour of the Police Forces (I take issue with describing them as services). Coincidentally I was just penning my views on today's revelations about the MET and the National Police Chiefs Council. See Police LIES on this forum.
Have you ever thought of taking up the profession of hijacker?


Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
Drumroll said:
So how would a royal commission for the police resolve all the other social problems the country faces?

Don't get me wrong, it is not right that a suicidal teenager has to be held in a police cell as there is nowhere else for them to go. But just defining that as not a police role won't make the problem go away.

One thing that would help everyone is if we looked at the culture of binge drinking in the UK. Just think how much police and NHS resources could be freed up if our towns and cities were not full of P1ssheads
An RC would look into the functions of the police. It's not only doing work that the other services fail to do, but all th other stuff as well.

For years we've have half-hearted goes at taking some of the work that doesn't require a warrant card from the police, but each time bar one funding has been cut for the 'alternative' and it has, if anything, increased the workload. The one exception is parking. The government has just played at improving the service.

The RC needs to look at what the service does and, vitally, what can be done by others more effectively, even more cheaply. If it concludes that a cell block is not the place for the vulnerable, then there needs to be some place where the vulnerable can go.

You feel that binge drinking is a problem then maybe an RC would agree. The problem in Brighton was reduced by a massive factor by having a licensing unit. All of a sudden landlords would have a PC who would point out that the pub/club/other licensed prems was serving alcohol to someone who was drunk. Youngsters were discovered, ejected and the licensee cautioned/reported. Having police officers turn up at all hours tended to concentrate the mind. However, the force couldn't afford it and it was culled. Should it be a police responsibility? Let the RC decide. At the moment, no one is doing much.

I was in Worthing yesterday. In a little green on the coast there was a collapsed man. The police turned up and could not revive him. They called an ambulance and the paramedics put him into a recovery position and cleared off. No point in the police arresting the chap as the custody officer would refuse to take the bloke in - following HO instructions - and the paramedics could not afford to clutter up and ambulance.

The present arrangements fail the chap.

There is so much more though. Should a warranted officer patrol the streets? Most people want it but it is expensive. Could/should PCSOs take on the role completely? How about taking statements? Then there's patrolling motorways.

Talk to a German police officer and he or she will tell you they do 'things' differently. The same goes for the Netherlands and, I would assume, France as well. Some European forces have a much lower recidivism rate than the UK for many offences. What do they do differently? Even I know some of the differences and many seem a much better idea.

And there's civilianisation. Many, most I assume, forces took on board the idea of using cheaper and more effective civilians to perform non-warranted roles. This present government has demanded that these be sacked, with the consequence that police officers are now transcribing taped interviews and typing reports. Until there is a guide as to what can be done, then petty, knee-jerk interference would have some kind of check.

2Btoo

3,410 posts

202 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Talk to a German police officer and he or she will tell you they do 'things' differently. The same goes for the Netherlands and, I would assume, France as well. Some European forces have a much lower recidivism rate than the UK for many offences. What do they do differently? Even I know some of the differences and many seem a much better idea.
I've seen such 'differences' hinted at both on here and elsewhere. Can you go into a little more detail on them Derek? Thanks.

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
Thanks Derek. I read it here first.

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 21st September 2018
quotequote all
2Btoo said:
Derek Smith said:
Talk to a German police officer and he or she will tell you they do 'things' differently. The same goes for the Netherlands and, I would assume, France as well. Some European forces have a much lower recidivism rate than the UK for many offences. What do they do differently? Even I know some of the differences and many seem a much better idea.
I've seen such 'differences' hinted at both on here and elsewhere. Can you go into a little more detail on them Derek? Thanks.
They vary from European country to country. For instance, France has a number of different forces with different responsibilities. I would suggest that no one wants a CRS, but that leaves the question as to why not. I could be looking at it through police officer eyes and not that of the general public. Certainly the response to the London and other metropolitan riots would have been a bit different. Getting a fully trained force out and quickly might well have limited the damage by a high percentage.

I've met a few German police officers and they all seemed more militaristic in organisation. This goes for response I'm told. They are well funded as well. An area the size in population of, say, the equivalent of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hants would have a number of helicopters.

I doubt there's much point in transferring a whole system of policing rather just the bits they do better. Why do they have lower recidivism? It isn't only the way they are policed so the whole criminal justice system would (bloodywell does) need changing.

We get a lot of foreign police forces coming to the UK to see if they can learn from us and this, I think, gives rise to a certain conceit that we have nothing to learn from them. On some matters we are good. Football crowds for instance. I know our identification procedures are seen as too complex by some other countries, but we manage well. Our procedures against terrorism have been copied by others. Given that we've had a virtual civil war for decades helps our skills levels.

We could go from the mundane: how do the Italians respond to moped use in robberies? What about burglaries in the low countries?

And then see if different organisation trends can be tried over here.

There isn't one system that used in Europe. It's very catholic.

It's not what I want, beyond a Royal Commission that is. What does the public want?


Chalkius

69 posts

70 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
A lot of our workload is caused by the failings/lack of resources of other areas. There aren't enough ambulances, mental health workers, social workers, etc, so their workload falls onto us. When we're already stretched due to budget cuts and increased workloads ourselves.

There really does need to be a change where other agencies are held accountable for their failings as much we we would be so they can't drop their workload on us (special mention to social services who leave us urgent calls about something they've known about all week, at 3:30pm on a Friday before they go home). And more importantly if those failings are due to lack of resources and funding, that should lead to actually getting increased funding so all the relevant services can function correctly in their designated way.

chunder27

2,309 posts

207 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
Agreed Chalk

As the son ofr a copper, when you hear what his younger peers are having to do now, you cringe.

Surely no-one here can argue that policing has changed completely, and a lot of the time because there just isn't the money to do it properly.

There are answers linked to ever increasing populations, lack of police presence, lack of respect for police (maybe their own fault in ways), but mainly massive budget cuts and other areas of the services spectrum simply not giving a st.

Burglary for instance is now a crime largely ignored because of insurance! How can that be right?

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,514 posts

247 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
chunder27 said:
Agreed Chalk

As the son ofr a copper, when you hear what his younger peers are having to do now, you cringe.

Surely no-one here can argue that policing has changed completely, and a lot of the time because there just isn't the money to do it properly.

There are answers linked to ever increasing populations, lack of police presence, lack of respect for police (maybe their own fault in ways), but mainly massive budget cuts and other areas of the services spectrum simply not giving a st.

Burglary for instance is now a crime largely ignored because of insurance! How can that be right?
I've been to a chat from the senior officer in charge of the busiest division of my county. Firstly, I was impressed. There was a certain bravery shown in the decision making. I can't help think that in my time such decisions would have been bluffed through until the incumbent moved on. Now the problems are dealt with, albeit with much reduced resources. The group I was in were critical of response, some not having had any attendance following a burglary, but their complaints were thrown back at them and they were asked where the resources would come from. The expected cry of 'From HQ' was met with statistics.

However, the police service is making decisions that the public is unhappy with, at least the outcomes. Shouldn't there be some form of direction?

Some of the recent 'innovations' are costing more without producing any advantage. They are thought to be good ideas by HomSecs and are introduced without proper consultation, funding or even expected results.


ZOLLAR

19,908 posts

172 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
They vary from European country to country. For instance, France has a number of different forces with different responsibilities. I would suggest that no one wants a CRS, but that leaves the question as to why not. I could be looking at it through police officer eyes and not that of the general public. Certainly the response to the London and other metropolitan riots would have been a bit different. Getting a fully trained force out and quickly might well have limited the damage by a high percentage.

I've met a few German police officers and they all seemed more militaristic in organisation. This goes for response I'm told. They are well funded as well. An area the size in population of, say, the equivalent of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hants would have a number of helicopters.

I doubt there's much point in transferring a whole system of policing rather just the bits they do better. Why do they have lower recidivism? It isn't only the way they are policed so the whole criminal justice system would (bloodywell does) need changing.

We get a lot of foreign police forces coming to the UK to see if they can learn from us and this, I think, gives rise to a certain conceit that we have nothing to learn from them. On some matters we are good. Football crowds for instance. I know our identification procedures are seen as too complex by some other countries, but we manage well. Our procedures against terrorism have been copied by others. Given that we've had a virtual civil war for decades helps our skills levels.

We could go from the mundane: how do the Italians respond to moped use in robberies? What about burglaries in the low countries?

And then see if different organisation trends can be tried over here.

There isn't one system that used in Europe. It's very catholic.

It's not what I want, beyond a Royal Commission that is. What does the public want?
You speak much sense DS, I deal with the police from a fraud investigators position (Insurance Industry).

Many officers at all ranks I deal with appear to understand the impact fraud has but they simply lack the resources or training to deal with it, to the point IFED was created and funded by insurance companies so that charges and convictions are brought.

Should Insurance companies have to go to such lengths?, remember the money for this team comes from premiums that policyholders pay so in effect they're paying twice for a service that should be catered for so to speak in the first place.

My father was in the police for a short time in the 70s which is a world away from today with different threats and issues, it's quite unbelievable there hasn't been a grass roots up review of all areas within the Police since 1960, I'd say the Police today do a remarkable job with the funding and ad hoc roles they carry out.
Are they perfect? No, mistakes happen but that will always be the case when humans are involved and I'm sure an RC would go some way to avoiding some of the issues currently faced.

I'll be signing it thumbup


2Btoo

3,410 posts

202 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
What does the public want?
Very good Q. I live in London hence the local 'force' is the Met and I have long been of the opinion that they are not fit for purpose. That's a strong phrase and I'm aware of what I am saying.

Simply put, I want to see laws that are in place for my protection and comfort to be enforced, instances where these laws are broken to be investigated and reasonable attempts made to ensure that such incidents don't happen again. Examples of such incidents?

- Being knocked off my bike by a hit-and-run driver. Reported to police and told that if I can ride the bike home then they won't do anything but thanks for reporting it anyway. Didn't even bother to take the registration number of the car
- Incident(s) where I and my wife have been racially abused. Again, 'thanks for reporting it, we will be sure to keep an eye open for the suspects.' What made this more disappointing is that they didn't even take a description of those 'suspects' so I wonder who they are looking out for
- Burglary in my own home. Officers attended but admitted they would do nothing to investigate or follow-up
- Physically assaulted while driving. DNA of attacker left at scene. Officers declined to take a sample of it, despite being asked three times whether they would.
- Burglary at property of friends of mine. Clear CCTV and the lady of the house saw the intruder face-to-face when she came home, police didn't even attend.
- Friend had her handbag snatched on the way back from the tube, saw the assailant go into a local house and called the police then and there (her
'phone was in her pocket). Police attended but refused to even knock at the door of the house as they 'didn't want to disturb the inhabitants'.
- Hit-and-run crash into parked cars on a local road. 6 vehicles damaged. Number plate and description given to police within 20 minutes of the incident, along with details of 7 witnesses. Was told that it's a matter for insurance and they wouldn't be following it up. This despite the vehicle in question being a sign-written van of a local delivery company.
- Saw drugs being openly dealt on the street. Called 999. Was told that they would 'attempt to send a unit within the next 24 hours'.
- Vandalism of car wing mirrors of a number of cars on our road, mine included. Reported to police, statement taken (see below), nothing further done about it.

These are all incidents in the last two years or so. I am aware that this will read as a rant against the police and lack of activity but, to answer your question of "what do the public want" then the answer is "a force that is effective against crime".

I noticed that in almost each instance there was no shortage of advice given to ensure it doesn't happen again. Victims of both burglary incidents were told how important it is to lock your front door and windows every time the house is left, ignoring the fact that the intruder got in by kicking in a back door or breaking a window. Handbag-snatch friend was given a leaflet on 'personal safety when out and about', which gave no recommendations that she wasn't already following when she was mugged. When knocked off my bike I was helpfully told how important it is to use lights and reflective clothing when riding at night, despite the fact that the incident took place at 4.0pm on a June afternoon. When I pointed this out to the officer giving the advice I was told 'yes, but we need to make sure that you are safe if you ride at night'.

There is clearly resource, but little desire to do anything about the problem. Perhaps the most telling incident of this was the last incident on the list. Two officers attended when three people who had lost wing mirrors reported it. Both officers took statements, written by hand in notebooks, from each of the three of us. It took around 45 minutes per person. 3 x 45 minutes is more than two hours, plus travel time. This will equate to the best part of a man-day, to gather information that was never going to be shared and would never go further than the pages of the pocketbooks in which it was written. It furthered the impression that there was resource a-plenty to be wasted, but little impetus to do anything about crime.

I heard a statistic some years back that less than 5% of the crime in the London area is 'solved'. 'Solved' was deemed to mean the perpetrator was identified, caught and brought to justice. I have no idea of how accurate this is but if it is then it is a shocking indictment on the police.

OK, off my soapbox now. What would a 'Royal Commission' do to help in situations like mine, and that of the other 7 million Londoners?

chunder27

2,309 posts

207 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
My fourpenneth

Surely in a country with an ever increasing population the police force should be rising, or at least staying level, not receding.

A lot o crimes are simply ignored now, not because Plod wants to ignore them, but they cannot waste the time pursuing.

That is not right.

Yes, there are rogue coppers and poor decisions made by some, even whole forces, but I don't believe any person goes into the police without some belief in doing good.

I want the laws upheld, crooks put away, immies deported if they cause problems a few times, s sent back to ireland.

these are all OTT points, but i think you might find a few police agree with them! Would make their lives a lot easier.

Seriously though, who does not want a strong police? If you are afraid of that, then there has to be a reason surely?

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,514 posts

247 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
2Btoo said:
Very good Q. I live in London hence the local 'force' is the Met and I have long been of the opinion that they are not fit for purpose. That's a strong phrase and I'm aware of what I am saying.

I think you and I are arguing on the same side. If the MP is not fit for purpose, as you say, then we should know why first of all and then have it rectified.

One problem for the MP is that they too have suffered from funding cuts, but their workload has increased dramatically. They have a dual role, that of general policing and what should be described as home security, or actions against terrorism. Someone gets stabbed in the HoC and the solution is to increase armed patrols. Where do these officers come from?

More to the point, at least from a pov of a member of the policed public, you, the priorities are wrong.

You complain that the police did not investigate:

1/ A hit and run RTA.

2/ Racial abuse,

3/ Burglary (attended but stated no investigation)

4/ DNA not take from an assault

5/ CCTV of a burglar

6/ Robbery in the street, location of offender known

7/ Hit and run damage only RTA

8/ Drugs dealt on the street

9/ Criminal damage, statement taken.

Apart from 2/ above, they have a lot on common.

The police have had the luxury in the past of investigating offences where there is no/little likelihood of an arrest/charge.

Further, they have also investigated offences where there is minimal damage, no injury or loss. If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked.

There are other criteria that have to be considered. Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness. This has been consistent for decades.

Drugs? The police will not stop drug dealing. That is the one thing that has been made clear since the ‘war’ started.

The police will use a form of tick-box system to assess whether further investigation is worthwhile. That has always been true to an extent. Official ‘sleeving’ has gone on since I was a probationer, the difference being that the victim was generally told lies. You, however, seem to have been dealt with honestly.

That’s what we have now. Is it right? Surely that’s the job of an RC.

I’ve done the ‘liaising with the local community to assess needs’ bit and I’m reliably informed that little has changed. The public wants: high visibility uniform patrols, dog mess offenders dealt with, cyclists on the footway prosecuted. A PC wandering the streets is very useful for intelligence, but is expensive. It was a great place to locate a tactical reserve, but the idea of a reserve nowadays is fantasy.

I’m surprised that 2/, a ‘hate crime’, was not followed up, even just as a show. I would have been in my force, but then there would appear to be little chance of an arrest, so which force is being more honest?

The remit of the police is too large. Either increase boots or decrease demand. That’s for the RC to decide.

I was told by an aged copper, who'd retired before I joined, that the service was going to the dogs because we didn't do things the old way. If it didn't scare the horses, ie if there was no problem from it, then it used to be sleeved. Welcome to the old days.


V8RX7

26,765 posts

262 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
Signed

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,514 posts

247 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
Signed
Ta,

cptsideways

13,535 posts

251 months

Saturday 22nd September 2018
quotequote all
Locally in our part of Dorset we effectively do not have a police force, our fairly large town has had the local station closed, nearest open station is now 15m away. We technically have one local officer & two PSCO's but they are now not based here. One would assume there is a lot of time wasted just getting from A-B every shift.

The only policing that gets done is purely reactive from a distance away & any arrests made mean that the crims get a daytrip to Weymouth 35m away (at least an hour away) as these are the nearest cells.

The current situation is dire, 101 calls you will be on hold for 30mins plus & then you wont get a follow up response & the reason you called in carries on.

Currently in our vicinity I know of three properties dealing class A's & have been for several years, daily activity involving a multitude of "disposable" unregistered vehicles. There is no policing response until the scrotes crash & have to be cut out of one of their wrecks.

Reading up they are immune from sentencing going by Dorset's court records, which are all suspended quite literally, as the slammers are full to the brim. The only justice being dished out is for speeders.

Read any of the local news court reports & it will make any upstanding citizen weep.

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/crime/court...



V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Sunday 23rd September 2018
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
There is an attempt to force a debate on how the police service should be organised and what it should be responsible for. See: https://www.change.org/p/maria-caulfield-mp-it-is-...

It's something that should have happened 20 years ago. Governments shy away from such things because it exposes what the state of the service is. Police should be a back-stop, the last resort when all else fails, but it is now the first call for those who should be adequately dealt with by other services.

If you care about how you are policed, are concerned that it is not an effective body, or want to ensure that the resources meet the demands, then sign it.

Or (to whom it may concern - names available) you could just go on moaning on thread after thread.
The poilce should maintain law and order, they should also be responsible for keeping the peace.

The RC should start with Peel's principles.

Complete transparancy on costs, so that we can see precisely where the tax money goes (this should apply to all public sector organisations)

No increases in tax rates though, the public sector get enough of my hard-earned income as it is.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 23rd September 2018
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
The poilce should maintain law and order, they should also be responsible for keeping the peace.

The RC should start with Peel's principles.

Complete transparancy on costs, so that we can see precisely where the tax money goes (this should apply to all public sector organisations)

No increases in tax rates though, the public sector get enough of my hard-earned income as it is.
You forgot protect life and that’s the most important one. Sadly it’s also one of the reasons that forces are on their knees because as previously mentioned they’re the catchall for other failing services. The government likes it this way as only the police seem to be failing compared to other public services that are just managing.

No ambulance - send police.
No fire service - send police.
No social services - send police.
No mental health workers - send police.
No Dr for sectioning - send police.

None of that is police work on what you list but if you throw on protect life then it becomes core work due to lack of resources in other services and counts for at least 2/3 in our area. So much so that the crimes where there is no risk for example, coming home to find you’ve been burgled, damage to vehicle, criminal damage, theft, robberies not ongoing don’t even go to the response incident job list.

Facebook and other social media disputes have exploded as they’re assessed under threat, harm and risk and usually contain a threat mostly because until they’ve sent an officer they have no real idea what that threat is. No one wants to tell them to do one and get a life because when one of them follows through with the Jeremy Kyle based threat then that officer is screwed.

Genuinely if you didn’t have officers spending time on online rubbish, NHS work, social services or mental health they we would have the police force we want. That would mean the cost of all other services going up but you would have proactive patrols day and night with officers doing what they joined up to do.

Not sit with Chardonnay who’s crying her eyes out because she called a bigger girl names on Facebook and now she’s received death threats via Twitter from Mercedes and her partner Kade. Nine times out of ten all of the above are unemployed and are still in their pj’s at 2 in the afternoon. They make up a huge amount of this type of work because you end up back there at 2am to section Kade after he’s gone on a mad one with beer and coke and is making threats to slit his own throat.



Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 23 September 10:10


Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 23 September 10:11