A Royal Commission into the police

[Derek Smith]

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.

[Derek Smith]

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]

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.

[Derek Smith]

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?

[Derek Smith]

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.

[Derek Smith]

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.

[Derek Smith]

V8RX7 said:

Signed

Ta,

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

If you want to change it you need to be part of it.

Is Javid any different from any other MP?

Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?

When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.

Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?

The group is led by Kevin Moore, ex chief super. He's a tenacious bugger. I've been involved in incidents he was SIO for and he goes at things at a run. Committed just doesn't do him justice. He's seen a couple of MPs, and there's a suggestion the matter will be brought up with the HomSec by MPs.

[Derek Smith]

Pothole said:

And yet, if you look at US police forces, they are very militaristic in both human resources and equipment. They actively recruit ex-service personnel and don't teach them the "service and people skills" that our officers use to defuse situations. They tend to escalate to screaming and shooting far too quickly. We don't need that. I'm sure there's lots we could learn from lots of other forces/services around the world, but would a Royal Commission have the power to force a group of empire-building chief constables whose main concern is starting a project which will make them look good for their next role (whether it actually comes to fruition or works if and when it does being a minor, secondary concern usually) to actually change their forces for the better by following its findings?

I would not, for one moment, suggest the American system for this country. There are many 'police' forces.

Some of them are highly trained at what they do. But I would agree that most don't seem to be. I've met a few, about half a dozen or so, serving officers in various police forces and individually they seemed on top of their game. But then, theses were the ones sent abroad so one might assume they were seen as of decent quality.

I've worked with three chief constables and none fit the description you give. All seemed to want to do a good job.

I can't see anything wrong with recruiting ex military, although they shouldn't be restricted to them alone of course. I'd say my experience is that a higher proportion turn out to be excellent officers than general recruits. Mind you, one should avoid those who remind you that they were ex-army every conversation as if it is some award.

We have some duff chief constables. We have some who are only after what's good for them, but in general they seem a dedicated, if dull, lot.

[Derek Smith]

2Btoo said:

Derek,

Thanks for your answer. Sensible comment from time-served coppers is (almost)always worth listening to.

Replying in slight haste; I simply don't agree with a number of your assertions. While I understand your comments about what is and is not worth following-up there was nothing done in a number of incidents listed despite there being a very good chance of an arrest.

- Both hit-and-runs were accompanied by a description of the vehicle and a registration number, along with contact details of at least two witnesses. In the second instance the vehicle in question was a sign-written lorry from a local company with offices less than a mile from Limehouse Police Station, which hit seven parked cars.

- "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." I'll take your word for it, but in the instance of one of the burglaries there was both clear CCTV footage (from two separate systems owned by two different people) and one of the residents of the house saw the burglar from less than 5 yards away. Two, possibly three means of ID and still not worth following up?

I am also concerned by the tone of your reply, which is a tone similar to that I have heard from other officers; investigating is something that is to be done on purely a financial cost:benefit analysis. This is neatly summed by by your statement "If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked." The absurdity of this beggars belief; a police investigation and an insurance pay-out are completely different things and one should not be in the place of another, and to follow such logic to its inevitable conclusion leads to a number of other questions. It also leaves me wondering where any retribution may takes place, furthering suspicions that retribution is not a popular concept in liberal society.

If the police will not stop drug dealing then who will? And if the answer to that is finger pointing with 'no-one' as the realpolitik answer then is it any wonder that it's rampantly out of control?

Racist abuse / hate crime. The cynic in me says that hate crime against white middle-class people is always always going to score lower on any police priority list than hate crime against other sections of society, particularly in Tower Hamlets, despite a clear description given of two of the people responsible, an accurate time and location and - again - a vehicle registration number and description.

For what it's worth, I've signed the petition.

Thanks for signing the petition. It's something that's important to me, despite being retired for some years now.

I think I might have misled you. I didn't mean to suggest that the crimes were not worth following up. What I meant was that the police have had to draw a line. It is different to the one that was current in my day, but even then, there were limits. I would assume, bet in fact, that the police officers are not happy that so much is sleeved nowadays. After all, they weren't happy in my day. I still remember one PC using the term 'two lone females' to try and push a job through.

I can see no argument that a line has to be drawn. It always has been. However, the question is whether it has been drawn in the right place. Are the police performing some functions that could be ignored? The RC would, I would assume, look at this and come to some conclusion. There are no easy answers.

As for the drug dealing; The Misuse of Drugs Act was flawed from the beginning and modifications have often made matters worse. There is overwhelming evidence to support cannabis being either classed as C or not included at all, but the government has decided that playing to their audience is the better option. The police have decided it is all a waste of time. The Act makes it impossible to succeed.

My force had a dreadful record for drugs offences. It was mentioned by HMIC in a critical part of a report. The national press then decided to do an expose on the matter. However, the facts were somewhat different. My force had a drugs unit which was well populated and supported. Whether or not the report was the cause or not is unknown, but the unit was disbanded. We then were slightly above the norm for such offences. It's laughable and quite shocking in equal measure.

This is the sort of thing that the RC should look at. Are the numbers the way to go or not? Is the HMIC fit for purpose? WTF are PCCs for?

Serious offences that used to be run, not overseen, by an SIO of inspector rank are now run by constables. Yet training is seen as very expensive, which it is.

There's lots wrong with the way we are policed at the moment. The swingeing cuts have shown this up. In the past the service could make-do, push officers from responsibility to responsibility, but those days are long gone.

Not only that, sooner or later, and I think the odds are for the former, there will be a repetition of the metropolitan riots. Seven years ago the police struggled with getting enough officers on scene - mutual aid in the jargon. When it comes again we might well be in it as there is no reserve. There used to be minimum manning levels, below which officers would be brought in on overtime. If my old force is anything to go by, these minimum levels are not attained during a whole day.

The response to the next set of riots will be blamed on the service; that goes without saying. However, the good news, amongst all the burned out remains of factories and shops, is that it might generate an RC.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Derek Smith]

ghe13rte said:

In a review it could be an option to make the terms of service for the police similar to the armed forces, same for fire and ambulance. Why not?

Just because "...we've always done it like that..." isn't a reason not to make the terms of service change or at least consider it.

What makes it OK for a serviceman to spend 4 or 6 months in action for the same or similar pay as his equivalent ranks are getting for working 9-5 arranging flowers around the parade ground?

If we need 200 police officers to search for a missing child why are the CC's having to think twice and say "...we can't afford the overtime to investigate that, erm, send half a dozen and make the best of it..."

Why do you compare the police to the armed forces? There is no similarity.

The present government cut agreed conditions for officers 'at a stroke', with no negotiation. You, it seems, want even more.

[Derek Smith]

A bit from the 'other side':

I was on holiday in the Lake District. Someone fell overboard and was missing. There was a note put up asking for volunteers to search the foreshore the following morning. The local bobby arrived, dressed in waxproofs, wellingtons and walking a spaniel, and he divided the crowd into groups. He asked how many policemen (his word) were there and three of us, all on holiday, put up our hands. We were placed in charge of groups. I had three in mine. So a quarter of the volunteers were off duty bobbies.

The local guy, as you would expect, found the body. Chatting to him afterwards, he asked me about my dog, a Bouviere, I mentioned his stylish uniform. He said that he was on rest day.

There was a serious crime. The SIO mentioned that there was no overtime. No one cried off. 12/14 hours shifts are required in the first few hours of such an incident and we had officers sleeping at the nick. The SIO brought a little bed and spent the first four days at the nick. As an inspector, he got no overtime.

The idea that bobbies are clock-watchers might be true for some, but not the majority.

[Derek Smith]

Red 4 said:

... And even weirder still is that the French firemen (including Paris) have a history of fighting with the CRS during protests over pay and conditions.

Likewise in Belgium and Spain !

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-N8LDCT-OE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-N8LDCT-OE

In the New Cross/Lewisham riots of 77(?) there were firemen involved on the 'other side'. At least one was from our local station and often 'boasted' of the fact. Rumours were they'd organised a coach.

[Derek Smith]

geeks said:

Whilst I don't believe it is the full solution I have signed as I think it is a good avenue towards opening up the story/debate/review/whatever needs to be done to get this sorted!

/minor rant/

I have a big problem with the way the Police in the country are regarded, they are commonly referred to as pigs, the filth and terms that get progressively worse but they are the first people we as a populous call when we are in the st!
I have had multiple dealings with them over my lifetime from being on the wrong side of them (as a tear away teen rather than anything serious aka boys will be boys) to being on the right/other side of things, they have bought me bad news (my BIL taking his own life) as well as good news (we found your car) and closure (you car was written off).
Another example when our cat was shot with an air rifle. The whole incident was taken very seriously, an officer visited and took a statement, a sergeant followed up with us and for a couple of months our local community team popped their heads over the gates to see how the cat was recovering and to check we were ok.
From where I sit they provide an undervalued service and often unenviable task list of bad things. Their image could do with some work, their are some bad eggs I am not so naive to think that all in the force are angels, some are in it for the power, some are in to serve but they are at least all in.
I don't know what the solution is, I don't pretend to but I do know I will support them where I can!

Re: tearaway youths.

I worked Brighton for a couple of years, returned as an inspector i/c a shift, and then back twice in other departments. There were kids I nicked in my first stint who would stop me in the town centre for a chat after 10/15 years. I'd be introduced to girlfriends/wives (a sign they'd changed for the better normally) and a couple of times, children as well. It's a positive side to the job.

Another time: when I was a PC I went into the Children's Hospital at Christmas just as something to do. I never knew if the nurses wished I'd cleared off as they were understaffed and only the most seriously ill kids were kept in. 15 years later I was walking on the Downs with my wife when a woman came up to me and asked if I was a police officer. I said I was off duty but did she need help. She said she recognised me as the one who came into the hospital when her child was ill and played with the kids. She said I was all her child talked of for some days afterwards. She just wanted to thank me.

The woman was emotional and walked off. It was obvious what had happened to her child. My wife was close to tears. Not really part of the job, but a member of the public would not have been allowed just to wander in and in any case would not have had the impact of a police officer in full uniform with a red nose on.

I think that in general, the police are held in a certain degree of respect by the public. There's a high degree of trust. The lack of funding leading to a lack of officers able to respond that we have at present means that this trust and respect might be eaten away. An RC might tell the public what to expect from the police so that when they are directed elsewhere there's some chance of understanding. A phone call to the doctors' surgery might well return an appointment with a nurse. It doesn't mean everyone is upset with the way doctors are not doing their job. The problems are well known. Any anger will probably be directed at the government. Perhaps that's why they will try and reject an RC into the police.

[Derek Smith]

Red Devil said:

Their French title is Brigade des sapeurs-pompiers de Paris (BSPP).
They also have certain specific duties beyond the capital and its surrounding départements.
Sapeurs (sappers) are military engineers, hence why the Brigade is a French Army unit.

Paris isn't the only French city to have a similar military based organisation.
Marseille does too but theirs is a Navy unit: the BMPM (Bataillon de marins-pompiers de Marseille).

The riots in 1968 seem to be largely forgotten outside of France. At the time they seemed unbelievable, at least in London. Later that year we'd had 30 to 100k (depending on which paper your read) anti-Vietnam war demonstrators, a number of whom attacked the American embassy in Grosvenor Square. The comparison between the way the police handled themselves in London compared to the CRS, who made things worse, was vivid. I met a number of police officers who said they were inspired to join the service on seeing how bravely the police handled themselves. A bit strange as there were films of bobbies being felled by stones.

When I joined the police we were shown videos of the policing methods the French used, showing positives and negatives. Given that there was a march where demonstrators exceed 1M, the police generally did well, although not without going over the top too many times. However, it was an attempt to topple the government.

We were also told that we had a responsibility for our own conduct and were shown a demonstrator coming out of the centre of Paris after days of disturbances. There was a CRS guard, complete with rifle, leaning against a wall in a doorway. He wasn't hiding and the demonstrator saw him. He flicked a cigarette contemptuously. We all knew what would happen, and it nearly did. The demonstrator got a rifle but into the neck. We were expecting a shot, so the assault was something of a relief and we laughed out of relief.

I still have sympathy for the CRS guy, despite his thuggery. He'd been on duty for hours, maybe days, without relief, food and even toilets. He was at the end of his tether. Both he and the demonstrator probably learned a lot that day.