A Royal Commission into the police

[Pothole]

Derek, you and I, and everyone else who ever thinks rationally about it, know that a war on drugs will never, ever work. The only possible "solution" is legalisation, regulation and taxation of the whole lot. This will never be implemented because politicians are scared stless. I

If every copper in the land arrested a street dealer a day for the next decade and they were all executed the problem still wouldn't go away. It can only be addressed when it is no longer worth billions to the major importers (and way more than the street dealers can earn from a straight job)

[2Btoo]

Derek,

Thanks for your reply. I take your point and suspect that we are probably coming to the same conclusion from different ends; I'm a member of the public who is deeply dissatisfied by the abysmal performance of my local force (or is it 'service' these days?) and you are dissatisfied by similar things when viewed from a higher and more internal point of view. I take your point about a line being drawn and it being drawn too far back. My comment is that with the line in it's current position there is no deterrent to people committing therefore crime levels will increase and get rapidly out of hand - as we are seeing.

My irritation with the excuses for not investigating remains.

I agree with your sentiment that we are heading for a deeply unpleasant future. My only hope is that the large incident that triggers some kind of reform will happen in some other part of the capital, but that's simply wishing bad luck on others rather than myself.

That change is needed is not in doubt. However I can see many areas that need radical improvement and that improvement can't simply involve spending more money; better and more efficient ways of working are needed, hence my initial interest in this thread around the way that police forces elsewhere operate.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Faz50 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Peel mentions "protecting and preserving life".

I understand that but I said you, meaning from your opening line.

You stated that I had "forgotten" about protecting life when it's clearly referred to within Peel's Principles.

And I understand the principles. But it wasn’t mentioned in your post like some of the other points you listed. I wasn’t making a big deal about the forgotten bit and went in to a rant about the situation. It wasn’t a dig.

[Derek Smith]

2Btoo said:

[snip]

That change is needed is not in doubt. However I can see many areas that need radical improvement and that improvement can't simply involve spending more money; better and more efficient ways of working are needed, hence my initial interest in this thread around the way that police forces elsewhere operate.

Thanks for the reply.

I take your point about more money not being the only answer. Cutting cloth, etc. Every copper coming towards retirement will feel that the Job is not what it used to be. There's normally a reason for that; other 'things' have changed. The police must change with it.

One has to ask what the police if for. I see no reason to return to the days of Peel. That was then. Things have changed a bit. Should warranted officers only deal with those functions that require a warranted officer? For instance, the key target for what was traffic division, roads policing, whatever, was to reduce deaths and injuries on the road. Does that require a warrant?

I thoroughly enjoyed being a patrol officer. I was invited into all sorts of places. I've met all sorts of people - and nicked one or two. It was great fun, interspersed with some scary bits. Many patrol officers gain intelligence that is denied those who sit in cars and respond to calls. Does it need a warrant card? For the majority of the work, no.

Much as I don't like the idea, if the police are going to continue with low levels of funding then answer might be to hive off those functions which, in the main, don't require warranted officers, with their expensive training and high on-costs.

I've been to a number of joint agency meetings where grandiose plans were made. I knew a lot about emergency response from the local authority. It was handy at times, but all I really needed to know was when to dump that part of a major incident on someone else. Ironically, the only time the knowledge I got from working with social workers was essential to a successful outcome was when I was safeguarding officer for a rugby club.

Should the security of the HoC be the responsibility of the police? Should the guarding MPs and embassies?

I had 137 full witness orders in two years, ie have to go to court. I gave evidence in 35 cases. I've been in the police waiting room at crown court when there were seven of us there for three days. Moaning to the resident judge was pointless. (Other wastes of manpower, out of the control of the police, are available.) Could the RC come up with restraints on such waste of manpower?

The police station should not be used as a place of safety. Whilst the police should not wash their hands of such cases, there needs to be places where medically/socially trained people can look after them until their resolution. Not only is it a waste of expensive manpower, it can also be harmful to the subject.

There is an awful lot of other work that the police do which could be completed more cheaply, and, dare I suggest, better with specifically trained people. At a meeting with a few identification officers, we all agreed that an inspector was not required to run one, other than by the binding Codes. We all had turned away more minor offences because of lack of space. It took years for the home office to get the message. There should be quick ways of enabling such efficiencies.

- - - Anecdote Alert - - -

Further, the police is seen as a source of income for the government. They keep trying to push centralised purchasing, despite everyone knowing it would cost more. Other expensive procedures are all but forced on forces.

The home office had a slow and expensive method of generating videos for video ID procedures. It took, according the them, five days. This did not include weekends, so if you ordered one on Monday, you got it the following Monday. This despite the requirement for parades within 24 hours for some offenders. They could do a special order for under 24 hours, but this incurred higher costs and required police officers to pick up said video and run it to the force. I'm not sure in Northumberland ID officer ever hit the target. In other words, video film identifications were unavailable to this specific group of offenders, as it was to those where witnesses would be unavailable after a couple of days.

I worked with a bloke, a civvy, from Devon and Cornwall, and came up with a system of in-house VFIs. It required a high level (then) of computer and expensive software. Yet I reckoned we could make up the cost in 15 months or so. I put it to my super. He put it through an ACC. I asked him why he hadn't ticked the box and he said that the home office would not be happy to lose the money. The ACC passed it to the chief constable and he gave the OK, He knew, though, this would be a black mark against him.

We saved more than our expenditure in less than a year. Devon and Cornwall not only did not go with the plan but sacked, or refused another contract for, my collaborator.

How can this be right? Yet it went on all the time in various guises. British Airways wanted to give me their old laptops for training purposes. Had I accepted the new cost of the laptops would have been taken from our funding.

[V8 Fettler]

Faz50 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Faz50 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Peel mentions "protecting and preserving life".

I understand that but I said you, meaning from your opening line.

You stated that I had "forgotten" about protecting life when it's clearly referred to within Peel's Principles.

And I understand the principles. But it wasn’t mentioned in your post like some of the other points you listed. I wasn’t making a big deal about the forgotten bit and went in to a rant about the situation. It wasn’t a dig.

I was going to list Peel's principles in my first post, but made the assumption that reference to the principles would be sufficient. No matter.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

.
.

One has to ask what the police if for. I see no reason to return to the days of Peel. That was then. Things have changed a bit. Should warranted officers only deal with those functions that require a warranted officer? For instance, the key target for what was traffic division, roads policing, whatever, was to reduce deaths and injuries on the road. Does that require a warrant?
'
'

No time machine = no return to the days of Peel, but the principles remain valid.

[carinaman]

Pothole said:

Derek, you and I, and everyone else who ever thinks rationally about it, know that a war on drugs will never, ever work. The only possible "solution" is legalisation, regulation and taxation of the whole lot. This will never be implemented because politicians are scared stless.

Noises about regulating the Internet to stop those criminal Russians tampering with our democracy show that our elected representatives are scared more stless by the Internet? I'm not sure how Russians influencing our democracy compares to the DUP propping up useless May. We need to regulate the Internet because of the paedophiles even though the Council in Rotherham used public money to seek an injunction to stop The Times reporting on the industrial scale grooming of vulnerable children there?

Should people be Facebook messaging and Tweeting their local Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) a link to the petition asking if the petition shows that PCCs have failed to listen to the public and have failed in general? Or Email local PCCs asking them to sign the petition?


One reason Javid and the Home Office may disregard this petition is because they're busy bringing about force mergers? Which PCC and Senior police officers will be getting Brownie points for merging first and therefore helping justify other constabularies merging? I'm unsure of the balance of the savings delivered by reducing the upper layers and reducing the number of PCCs versus under performing or corrupt police officers having an easier life because they'd be in a larger police force?

Though 'Here Javid, Your brother is a police officer, for whatever reason the police seem to have lost their way, wouldn't it be useful to have this Royal Commission before police constabularies are merged making even larger amorphous police forces that may retain the problems and lack of direction of their component constabularies?' may be another worthless suggestion.

Derek, the former West Mercia PCC who was a former Copper who then set up his own business after his police career may be a useful ally. He may have had some good ideas on managing young offenders, but then we may be on the road to privatising offender management and the failures to protect life that happened as a consequence.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 24th September 22:04

[Graveworm]

Pothole said:

Derek, you and I, and everyone else who ever thinks rationally about it, know that a war on drugs will never, ever work. The only possible "solution" is legalisation, regulation and taxation of the whole lot. This will never be implemented because politicians are scared stless. I

)

I have thought rationally about it but don't agree. There could be some degree of formal decriminalisation but that is nothing like legalisation. If there is a war on drugs - it can't be won - if a win is no drugs and no drug addicts, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the damaging effects of drugs. This is not something that would be easy to roll back, once we go down that road, if we discover have made a huge mistake.

We have been fighting a "War on disease" for centuries longer than a "War on drugs" yet people still die from diseases. Drugs kills people who take them and ruins families and lives. Drug users already get every opportunity to get help and, in terms of treating addicts, it is largely decriminalised. Alcohol and tobacco are legal(Ish) taxed etc yet they kill way more every year than controlled drugs and are massive drain on the economy.

If you legalise drugs you need a supply chain, that is already causing problems for simple cannabis, where it is legalised and if we move to all drugs then that has not even begun to be thought through. E.g do you want a heroin and crack shop next to your children's school? Lose your job go to the job centre, get offered a job as meth sales rep. which if you decline will mean no benefits.

We would become a source country for the rest of the world, who have no intention of going down the legalisation route. So instead of having all those distributors and street dealers, you mention, we will have cartels trying to ship our legal drugs around the world. That would not sit well at all with a lot of countries who we do business with and would be massively damaging financially and socially.

[andy_s]

Graveworm said:

I have thought rationally about it but don't agree. There could be some degree of formal decriminalisation but that is nothing like legalisation. If there is a war on drugs - it can't be won - if a win is no drugs and no drug addicts, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the damaging effects of drugs. This is not something that would be easy to roll back, once we go down that road, if we discover have made a huge mistake.

We have been fighting a "War on disease" for centuries longer than a "War on drugs" yet people still die from diseases. Drugs kills people who take them and ruins families and lives. Drug users already get every opportunity to get help and, in terms of treating addicts, it is largely decriminalised. Alcohol and tobacco are legal(Ish) taxed etc yet they kill way more every year than controlled drugs and are massive drain on the economy.

If you legalise drugs you need a supply chain, that is already causing problems for simple cannabis, where it is legalised and if we move to all drugs then that has not even begun to be thought through. E.g do you want a heroin and crack shop next to your children's school? Lose your job go to the job centre, get offered a job as meth sales rep. which if you decline will mean no benefits.

We would become a source country for the rest of the world, who have no intention of going down the legalisation route. So instead of having all those distributors and street dealers, you mention, we will have cartels trying to ship our legal drugs around the world. That would not sit well at all with a lot of countries who we do business with and would be massively damaging financially and socially.

Please read up on the experiences of Portugal, Colorado and particularly Cyrus Vance's (DA) report when legalising cannabis in Manhattan. We would not be a source country, Cartels wouldn't be involved as it's legal, not illegal - that's the whole point. Please read up on it with an open mind as a lot of what you've said is without foundation and quite hyperbolic. And I'm not saying that to win points or the argument, just that it's obvious you've missed something in your thought process. It's not without its downside, but the downside is minimal compared to what we have today - honestly.

[Graveworm]

andy_s said:

Please read up on the experiences of Portugal, Colorado and particularly Cyrus Vance's (DA) report when legalising cannabis in Manhattan. We would not be a source country, Cartels wouldn't be involved as it's legal, not illegal - that's the whole point. Please read up on it with an open mind as a lot of what you've said is without foundation and quite hyperbolic. And I'm not saying that to win points or the argument, just that it's obvious you've missed something in your thought process. It's not without its downside, but the downside is minimal compared to what we have today - honestly.

Portugal haven't legalised drugs. I said some formal decriminalisation was probably a good thing that is not the same thing. Drug dealers still exist and many huge shipments of illegal drugs go into Portugal. The positive media message out of Portugal is not reflected by the views of their people on the ground or accepted by the EU assessments

However please don't assume that my not agreeing with you is because I know nothing about the issue. I spent the end of my career literally doing nothing else but running the team charged with dealing with this issue. There is no easy win.
.
Legalisation would almost certainly make us a source country why do you think it wouldn't? If they can legally buy drugs here and set up a business to sell it, why on earth would they not seek to exploit that to illegally export from here to the rest of the world especially Europe at huge profits and much lower risk. We have warnings on cigarette packets, what do you suggest we put on crack packaging? How do we avoid any responsibility for the consequences of suddenly allowing the supply of something that is harmful.

[Derek Smith]

We can never return to the 'good old days' of the pre 1971 Drugs Act. It wasn't nirvana in those days, but drugs were much harder to come by. Cannabis quality was much lower and you'd have to balance the downside of a smoker's cough against the benefits of a high.

A registered drug addict could get his/her own supply of their drug of choice. This did not entirely cut the criminal element from the equation but it did limit it to a massive extent. I went to art college and out of our group, there were two who regularly used drugs, and only one of those was on the hard stuff. I think most of us experimented with amphets, but they were expensive. Reefers were weak, but oh so cool.

Registered drug addicts held down high level jobs, very much as DAs do now of course. The negative aspect of the replacements for the drug of choice was, er, negated. It was an effective way of monitoring and reducing drug abuse.

Cannabis was illegal but the police did not bother. It's inclusion in the The Dangerous Drugs Act was controversial and most people did not realise it was covered. There was limited availability I've been told, but with immigration came cultures that cultivated it as the norm.

Controlling class B and A drugs by legislation, reclassifying cannabis, or rather classifying it sensibly, and controlling it by regulations might be an option. Certainly, possession of smallish quantities is no longer prosecuted in many forces. What is wrong practically is that one can be subject of an arrest for drugs just by stepping over an invisible line.

Drugs law needs major reform. It has needed it for many years but MPs have not only been reluctant to do something about it, but what they have done, like May reclassifying cannabis as class B, is to make things worse.

The Drugs Act has created the innumerable criminal gangs that now pollute our towns and cities. It has cost lives. It has cost people their jobs through being tarnished as a serious criminal by a law that was poorly thought out.

The pre 70s were not halcyon days of no drugs, but there wasn't massive amounts of money to be made from it by criminal gangs.

There was a book on Operation Julie, the LSD manufacturing and distribution network that was country-wide. It disparaged the gangs for being amateurish, but that was the norm in those days for drugs supply. If only they were like that now.

[ghe13rte]

One of the commissions jobs should be to look at pay. I don’t recall soldiers, sailors and airpersons getting overtime when the worked longer than a single shift.

[andy_s]

Graveworm said:

Portugal haven't legalised drugs. I said some formal decriminalisation was probably a good thing that is not the same thing. Drug dealers still exist and many huge shipments of illegal drugs go into Portugal. The positive media message out of Portugal is not reflected by the views of their people on the ground or accepted by the EU assessments

However please don't assume that my not agreeing with you is because I know nothing about the issue. I spent the end of my career literally doing nothing else but running the team charged with dealing with this issue. There is no easy win.
.
Legalisation would almost certainly make us a source country why do you think it wouldn't? If they can legally buy drugs here and set up a business to sell it, why on earth would they not seek to exploit that to illegally export from here to the rest of the world especially Europe at huge profits and much lower risk. We have warnings on cigarette packets, what do you suggest we put on crack packaging? How do we avoid any responsibility for the consequences of suddenly allowing the supply of something that is harmful.

Portugal treat drug use as a medical problem, I said to look at their experience, not necessarily that it was legal.
I'm not talking about crack, I'm talking about cannabis especially but perhaps also other drugs depending how you go about it - cannabis would be a good start though - and I also have professional experience - nicking cannabis users was a complete waste of time except to use it as a lever to spin their drum.
ETA - as per Derek's more expansive comments.
Anyway, we're straying from the topic/

Edited by andy_s on Tuesday 25th September 10:02

[Derek Smith]

ghe13rte said:

One of the commissions jobs should be to look at pay. I don’t recall soldiers, sailors and airpersons getting overtime when the worked longer than a single shift.

Just as well they ain't part of the armed services then, isn't it.

[Red 4]

ghe13rte said:

One of the commissions jobs should be to look at pay. I don’t recall soldiers, sailors and airpersons getting overtime when the worked longer than a single shift.

Inspectors and above don't get paid overtime. Ever.

The first half hour of overtime is disregarded for Constables and Sergeants.

Hope that helps.

[ED209]

Derek Smith said:

ghe13rte said:

One of the commissions jobs should be to look at pay. I don’t recall soldiers, sailors and airpersons getting overtime when the worked longer than a single shift.

Just as well they ain't part of the armed services then, isn't it.

I think no work without pay is one of the basic human rights.

Pay has been getting worse and worse over recent years are you suggesting cops should all work for free now?

Also over recent years most cops aren't interested in overtime, the job has gone to the dogs so much they would rather be poorer and at home.

[Red 4]

ED209 said:

Derek Smith said:

ghe13rte said:

One of the commissions jobs should be to look at pay. I don’t recall soldiers, sailors and airpersons getting overtime when the worked longer than a single shift.

Just as well they ain't part of the armed services then, isn't it.

I think no work without pay is one of the basic human rights.

Pay has been getting worse and worse over recent years are you suggesting cops should all work for free now?

Also over recent years most cops aren't interested in overtime, the job has gone to the dogs so much they would rather be poorer and at home.

ghe13rte was comparing police to the military.

I wonder if ghe13rte is really Tom Winsor who wants "Commissions" (short/medium term contracts) for police officers.

It will happen - just give it (a bit more) time.

If you think the job is fked now just wait and see.

[Greendubber]

ghe13rte said:

One of the commissions jobs should be to look at pay. I don’t recall soldiers, sailors and airpersons getting overtime when the worked longer than a single shift.

Why shouldn't police officers get paid overtime?

Is it just cops, what about other professions?

[Red Devil]

Derek Smith said:

- - - Anecdote Alert - - -

Further, the police is seen as a source of income for the government. They keep trying to push centralised purchasing, despite everyone knowing it would cost more. Other expensive procedures are all but forced on forces.

A tad under 40 years ago...
https://youtu.be/vRCgO6QmbGk?t=591
and
https://youtu.be/vRCgO6QmbGk?t=805
and
https://youtu.be/vRCgO6QmbGk?t=898

[wc98]

signed.let's hope it gets a fair hearing.
no idea what is going on with forum. above reads as let's hope prior to submitting.

Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 25th September 22:54