The Complainant

generally have a great dislike of dealing with complaints. The majority of those I receive are either spurious or malicious, seen by the complainant as a method of getting their process ticket revoked or in the misguided belief that the police will decide it's best we drop criminal charges as a result. I mean, they're evidently innocent if they've gone to the bother of making a complaint. Maybe the police will realise they got it wrong? Maybe the police will realise they got it right, but won't want the embarrassment of the complaint being mentioned at court? The police will say they're sorry and everything will be alright. It's that easy. It must be, or why would there be a complaints process?

Of course, there are occasions when we do get it wrong, and there is very little to do other than offer an apology. It won't change any such recurrence in the future. We still won't get to your call any earlier because we still won't have the officers. There still won't be a sergeant present to advise the young officer who made the wrong decision about how to deal with your matter, because the sergeant would have been back at the police station completing paperwork. I can't make the CPS change their mind about not charging the person who assaulted you, because that person went no comment in interview on the advice of their solicitor - which the CPS was really hoping they wouldn't do. Those damned defence solicitors, they've figured out how to defeat the Crown before the case even gets to court.

This is where I have to disagree with Nightjack's infamous post on complaints. You know, the one that The Times cited as being one of the few dubious reasons why they felt the need to reveal his identity. You see, the fact of the matter is that as a Detective Constable, he would never have had to take a complaint. The same is true for Detectives of any rank, as all complaints received over the front counter at the police station, or by letter or telephone, will be dealt with by a Uniform Inspector. How far a complaint actually proceeds depends on the Inspector recording it. It needs to be an experienced officer, someone who is able to get to the root cause - and as I said often a malicious or spurious cause - of the complaint, and to politely inform the complainant that the matter won't be proceeded with. Words of advice will always be given to the officer concerned, regardless of the veracity of the evidence provided. Sometimes even this does not occur, and the words of advice are directed back at the complainant, as in the following example.

The Station Reception Officer comes to speak to me in my office. Steve Slag is at the front counter and he wants to make a complaint about an officer. I know Steve Slag. I've dealt with him many times during my time in Utopia. I've seen him progress from being a petty shoplifter selling stolen frozen meat in local pubs for £5 a pop to buy his cannabis, to breaking into people's homes whilst they sleep and stealing their LCD televisions, selling them in local pubs for £50 a pop in order to buy his heroin. I've stopped and searched him a few times myself. He has always complained on those occasions of police harassment, which he bases on the fact that it's been over a week since he was last arrested.

"Hello Steve. I understand you're here to make a complaint about an officer?"

"Too f*cking right I am. It's PC 4422."

"Oh yeah, I know 4422, he's a fine officer. Very proactive."

"Too f*cking proactive. The c*nt's always arresting me."

"Okay, mind your language. I see you're upset, but you don't want to upset me. So he's always arresting you? Is it the manner in which he treats you whilst arresting you that you're complaining about? What is it he does to upset you?"

"Nuffink. It's just whenever I've been arrested the last 8 times, he's always f*cking there."

"It sounds to me like he's doing his job. What's happened when you've been arrested by him? Have the cases been dropped or have you been charged?"

"I've been charged."

"On all 8 occasions?"

"Yeah, but that's not the point. If other officers stop me they get on the radio to him and he'll come down and arrest me, even if he's had nuffink to do with it."

"Sounds to me as though he doesn't like you."

"That's not right. That's harassment and I want to make a complaint against the c*nt."

"It's not harassment and I'm not taking a complaint. However, I would like to offer you some advice if you're willing to listen to it."

"What's that?"

"Best you get out of my station before I call 4422 to come down and arrest you."



Hobbesellian Footnote: I don't want anyone who has read the above to leave with the impression that Inspector's will try their hardest to send a genuine complainant away. We know from what is presented to us in the first instance by the complainant what warrants further investigation, and what is malicious, as in the above semi-fictitional example. Nothing is so frustrating for an Inspector to know that one of his officers has behaved inappropriately - claims of bureaucracy, target-setting, government interference etc have no bearing on how an officer should conduct themself. For further clarification on Police Complaints and what actualy constitutes a complaint, please click on this link.

An Explanation for My Epiphany

I have to admit I've had cause to reflect on blogging after reading that one of my fellow police officers described my last post as being one from a 'brave' police officer who is prepared to carry on 'causing trouble with this police blogging lark.' I'm not brave, I've never intended to cause trouble, and this isn't a lark for me. I'm a coward who hides behind anonymity, I am not responsible for the 'trouble' police bloggers cause - the government is - and I take all of this very seriously. If we didn't write about what irks us, the public would think that we are indeed agents of that government, and not servants to the public.

I want to stress at this point that I haven't taken offence by Area Trace No Search's comment, not a bit of it. He writes a great blog and I sincerely hope he continues to do so. What's more, I hope that my last post doesn't lead that fine officer to cease blogging because he's concerned that my declaration of support for the Libertarian Party is unbecoming of a police officer and would therefore lead other unscrupulous journalists to 'out' us. However, I have to say that upon reading the Libertarian manifesto, I finally found a party that reflects my deep-founded political beliefs. In particular, their views on policing. Here is an excerpt from their manifesto on policing:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

This is not the viewpoint of some lunatic-fringe contingent. It actually extols all of the elements of policing that I and my fellow police bloggers write about on a daily basis. It's what we want. It's what you want. More pertinently, the above principles are those laid out by the founding father of the first ever professional police force - the Metropolitan Police Service - and that man is Sir Robert Peel. I should also point out that Mr Peel was a Conservative, and he lived in a time when conservative principles were those that are now reflected in the policies of the Libertarian Party. So, if my identity is exposed and the Chief Constable should decide to hang me for my views, then so be it. Hang me. Hang me high.

On a different but related note, I read an excellent post from Hog Day Afternoon today. Not just for the fact that it was so well written, but for one sentence. It was his desire to get home to Mrs H. I don't know why this hit a chord with me, but it did. So, I am to take a brief respite from blogging, only for a few days, to spend some time with Mrs Hobbes and Baby Hobbes, even though my wife is quick to expose my faults.

Anyway, I hope this encourages Area Trace No Search to continue blogging, he would be a sad loss to the community. Until I return, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this and my previous posts. I've messed around with the settings on my blog, and if anyone cares to comment on previous posts I should get an e-mail alerting me, so I promise I shall respond.

In the meantime, please don't forget to show your support on Armed Forces Day this weekend. It's a time to show appreciation for all of those young men and women - past and present - who are prepared to give their lives in order to protect our liberty.

Kind of brings all of the above into perspective, doesn't it?

Virtual Courts

Last week Jack Straw announced the introduction of a pilot scheme for Virtual Courts. This involves the trial of video links direct from the police station to a magistrate's court in order to speed up the judicial process. It is anticipated that when rolled out across England and Wales next year it will save the tax-payer £10 million pounds per year.

There will be a further announcement from Mr Straw that those Virtual Defendants who receive custodial sentences will be sent directly to any one of the many hundreds of Virtual Prisons the government has built in the last 15 minutes or so.

The rise in Virtual Defendants attending Virtual Courts and becoming Virtual Prisoners will increase significantly over the next 24 hours, as Mr Straw is also to reveal that at 10 o'clock this morning 200,000 Virtual Police Officers were recruited and, after intensive Virtual training, will be patrolling the streets later this afternoon.

They will all strive to increase arrest-rates for Virtually Any Old Tosh in order to achieve more Sanctioned Detections.

The State of the Police

My weekly posting is out on Police Oracle today where I look at comments made by Judge Bray and Mr Sinclair of The Tax Payers Alliance. They believe that the public do not bother to call the police for minor crimes because they have no confidence officers will attend, and so take matters into their own hands. Can this be true?

Prisoner's Voting Rights

I could count on no fingers the times I have been present at court to see a defendant receiving a custodial sentence, only to hear them lament, "Oh my fortune! 'Tis to my great dissatisfaction that I shall now have my right to vote taken from me. Is the deprivation of my liberty not enough!" It never happens and, let's face it, the majority of prisoners would think that Gordon Brown is a derogatory term for low-grade heroin. You know, something that promises much but is without substance and ultimately fails to deliver. Quite apt.

However, the European Court of Human Rights has determined that this law, stemming back to the 1870 Forfeiture Act, is unlawful and that Parliament must do something to correct it. The issue came to the fore when an inmate called John Hirst (he killed his landlady with an axe when she asked him to bring in some coal) began a legal campaign on the grounds that because prisoners are deprived of the right to vote, they cannot affect change. What change could he wish to affect I wonder? Voting for a party that will make it legal to go around killing people with an axe?



He felt somewhat aggrieved when complaining about prisoner's conditions that the officers would reply, "Oh you're a prisoner, you're less than human." To which he would counter, "No I'm not, I'm a human being, I've got rights." So did the poor woman he brutally murdered. He thinks that if prisoners are given the vote, then politicians will come knocking on their cell doors asking them what they think, offering "incentives or privileges" to vote. So there it is, the crux of the matter, prisoners being offered "incentives or privileges" to do so. Hardly such a noble cause after all but then again, are you surprised?

In any case, what more incentives could they wish to receive other than the two early release schemes currently being offered by the Government? Maybe the Government will recognise the prisons as constituencies themselves? We could soon be seeing the Robbery and Theft Party, the Never Be Worker's Party, or the It's Okay to Kill Someone Party. At least if this did happen and one of them should be elected to Parliament, there would be no eyebrows raised if it was to later come into the public domain that they were claiming expenses on Cell 443 at HMP Belmarsh as their second home.



Where does all this stop? They've committed a crime, depriving others of their property, liberty - or as in the case of Mr Hirst's actions - their life. Yet the ECHR believes that they should have the right to vote on issues that will affect the lives of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Even if they do get the vote, how long will it be before a legal challenge is raised over these prisoners having to mark a voting card with an 'X'? For 90% of them, that's their signature, and they'll say that using an 'X' therefore makes them identifiable, thus removing the anonymity required for voting. It will happen. You know it will.

Let's hope some commonsense does prevail, which could be achieved by following Eire's lead. There, prisoners are not deprived of the right to vote. However, prisoners have 'no right to be given physical access to a ballot box by way of temporary release, by postal vote, or any other way.' Genius.

Another Addendum

I have to admit, my last posting was a very difficult one to write in that I'm not entirely sure it conveyed the message I really wanted to put across. Those who are serving police officers will understand what I am saying, but those who are not may read it as a justification for the targeting of people from visible ethnic minorities. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What I am trying to say here is that it is preposterous for those journalists and human rights activists to say that officers actively use these powers in a biased manner. The use of these powers is the result of intelligence-led policing, in specific areas where the given crime-trend has been identified as being the most prolific or at risk of increase.

What I do find extremely insulting, however, is the explicit suggestion that we are racist, and that it may be at the forefront of our minds that visible ethnic minorities present the greatest threat to the social order. I find it extremely insulting that, unlike those journalists and human rights activists, the overwhelming majority of senior and rank and file officers have attended state comprehensive schools and lived in inner city suburbs. Here, we grew up alongside children from visible ethnic minorities and carried on those friendships into adulthood. Those journalists and human rights activists are, in all reality, the ones who are displaying racial prejudice. They consider the visible ethnic minorities to either be so apathetic, stupid or lazy that they feel they must complain on their behalf. That is the greatest insult.

Interview with an Arsonist

The following is a factual account of an interview with a Chavette Arsonist.

Honestly.

Okay, so the interview didn't actually occur, nor did any of the circumstances described below. But it could have occurred, and the interview described is the sum total of numerous interviews and conversations I have had with Chavettes. If there was a Queen Chavette who possessed all of the most notable qualities of her Chav Subjects, then all that follows would be true, and would have in fact taken place. Only it didn't, but could have, should have, and probably has.

PC: "Okay, would you like to begin by telling me why you've been arrested today Debbie?"

D: "Miss Run Da Ting Ding."

PC: "Sorry?"

D: "That's me street name, how I'm known in my Endz."

PC: "Okay, so Debbie, you've been arrested for arson."

D: "Bet you want my arse on sumfink of yours."

PC: "Debbie, this is a very serious matter. Tell me everything that happened leading up to your arrest."

D: Well, me and Shazbat - her name's Kelly but I thought of that street name meself, she says I'm mad - anyway, we'd been at a shop getting some new threads. Whassits its name? Oh yeah, C & A. I calls it Crap & Awful, Shazbat p*sses hersel' when I say that. She says, "You're mad," and you know, I am mad. I kicked a pigeon dead hard one time and killed it. Anyways, we'd been shopping at Crap & Awfuls and I'd stolen..."

PC: "Sorry?"

D: "Er, no, BOUGHT, I'd bought some leggings. My baby-father loves me in them. Well, one of 'em does. We gets to our estate, and I sees this new office or sumfink's opened. I can'ts read too good, so I asks Shazbat to tells me what it says on the sign. Shazbat tells me, "It says "Get a job innit." I says, "What?" Shazbat says, "Get a job innit?" Well, I looks frew the winda, and it's all posh inside wiv this geeza all dressed up nice and what-have-you. I gets really mad, you know. These peoples, fink they've had it hard and wants to give sumfink back, or feels sorry for the likes of me. They comes to our Endz and finks they can be like us or sumfink and get us jobs and that talking like us will 'elp. So I gets really, really mad."

PC: "And?"

D: "So I goes in the shop or whatever and I starts shouting at this geezer. "Who do you fink you are? You comes 'ere in my Endz, wearing a tie, and you fink you can be us. You aint's got no clue." He looks at me all confused like and says, "Can I help you madam?" I gets even more mad. "See, you fink you're posh 'cos you know a French word." He was all like, "I'm really sorry, is there a problem?" I said, "Yeah, I've a problem. You 'ave to go and say Get a job innit. Like innit is gonna make us wanna gets off the social. Likes we'll read it and fink your wiv it or sumfink."

PC: "So what did he say then?"

D: "He says, "I'm sorry, there's been a bit of confusion. We teach computing to members of the community, you know, to try and help them get a decent job. The sign doesn't say Get a job innit. It says Get a job in I. T, as in Information Technology. Maybe I can book you on a course, see how you get on?" Well, me and Shazbat, we both p*ss oursel's, I mean, really p*ss oursel's laughing, and this geezer just looks at us. Shazbat says we're really sorry, on account of me being mad and all. Then we just ran out and went 'ome."

PC: "What? So you're telling me that was it? That you just went home and nothing else happened?"

D: "No. I went back later and set fire to it."

It's Because I Like Hitting People

"Good morning, I am Commander O'Brien and will be briefing you about today's policing strategy for the G20 Protests. I would like to thank all of you for taking part in this operation which I've called Operation Glencoe. For those of you who don't know, this was the site an infamous massacre in 1692 of some Scottish Jacobites who dared to step out of line. It's no coincidence that we have named our operation after this event, and I'm sure you can all anticipate how the MPS expects you to treat the protesters today. To remove any doubt, I want you to give them a good kicking. Don't worry about the media response, the right-wing press is and has always been on our side. However, there will undoubtedly be some Leftists there, videoing you. My advice is that you either remove all numerals from your epaulets now or, after giving someone a kicking, to swap your jackets around. Don't do too good a job preventing criminal damage to the infrastructure of the city though, otherwise I'll find it a little bit difficult to justify our overtly thuggish response. With the agreement of the Commissioner, I've nominated the Royal Bank of Scotland as the venue that we'll let the protesters smash up. It's quite an apt choice of location, I'm sure you'll agree, considering that we named today's operation after another Scottish humiliation! Seriously, I hope you are up for the challenge we face today and I want all of you to remember why you and I joined the police: it's because we like hitting people".

Okay, so I wasn't actually at this briefing, as the Utopian Police Force took no part. If I was at the briefing, I'm absolutely certain that none of the above would actually have been said. Not one word of it. Unless, however, you read the article written by George Monbiot in The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/20/police-g20-protests

I don't believe that I have ever read such licentious drivel that has so infuriated, incensed and angered me. Spittle flew against the PC monitor, my cup of tea fell on the floor, the cat leapt off the sofa, the birds in the street stopped singing. Mr Monbiot is, in his words, a best selling author (never heard of him, never want to read his books), presumably of fiction.

He also recounts how on one occasion where he was peacefully demonstrating, apathetic police officers stood idly by whilst private security guards impaled his foot on a spike. He doesn't elaborate on the circumstances of how his foot was in the vicinity of the said spike. Hmmm... Could it be the case that this occurred whilst Mr Monbiot was attempting, as a demonstrator, to gain illegal access onto private premises where the owners had hired security guards to protect their property? Could it be that the police officers took no steps to eject Mr Monbiot in accordance with trespass law, which states that the rightful owner or their agents should first seek to eject a trespasser, and that the police should only intervene upon their request? Could it also be that, whilst Mr Monbiot was clambering over the fence, the private security guards stopped him, that he slipped and impaled his foot on a metal spike, all through his own infantile stupidity? This I am certain of.

Mr Monbiot would also have you believe that police officers continuously bashed the head of one of his friend's on a police van and then arrested him for criminal damage. He was charged for this offence and presumably sent to court. "Why is this man here before me today officer?" "Well, m'lud, he walked up to our van and began bashing his head on the bonnet of it for no reason whatsoever. I told him to stop, so I did, but he would not listen, he would not. That was when I arrested him for criminal damage." "Good work officer. He's clearly guilty. By the way, nice to see that you're not wearing your shoulder numerals today. I hope you gave him a good kicking." "Why m'lud, that's the very reason why I joined the police, because I like hitting people."

A Time to Reflect

It was with great sadness that I read about the death of PC Gary Toms. PC Toms was a CO19 officer with the MPS, and had responded to a robbery call in Leyton, East London on the 11th of April. He suffered a serious head injury when the suspects decamped from a vehicle and was subsequently hospitalised. On Friday the 17th of April his life support machine was turned off. My thoughts are with PC Toms' family, friends and colleagues at this time. What was particularly pertinent for me was to see that PC Toms had one year's less service than I, and was also 37 years of age. I wonder if he was married, as am I, and if he had a beautiful baby daughter, as I do. I wonder how many times throughout his shift, he thought of his family and loved ones, and hoped that no call came in towards the end of the tour that woud delay his being with them. I have no doubt that his family are immensely proud of the officer, and I have no doubt that the officer always performed his duties to the best of his ability, as do all of the officers I work with and have worked with throughout my career.