Police Target Criminals! - Is this news?

This story caught my eye. The Met have announced that they are cracking down on crime, targeting criminals, executing search warrants and arresting offenders. To help get some publicity for this amazing fact they even took along the mayor, Boris Johnson.

I get really fed up with these publicity operations. My team are tackling crime all the time. We arrest people, we execute search warrants and seize stolen property every day of the week. Then someone with scrambled egg on their hat has the big idea to carry out an operation. We give it a fancy name, Operation Vanquish or something daft. Dates are set for a week or two week campaign. We have lots of meetings about it. We defer arresting people or executing search warrants until the operation dates.

The publicity machine is put into action. The press, members of the Police Authority, Councillors etc. are invited to come out on some raids. For a week or two the cells are filled, stress all round, much back slapping and the press swallow it hook line and sinker tell the public what a marvellous job we are doing. The statistics show that in the two weeks before the operation we hardly arrested anyone and in the two weeks during we arrested dozens. (I wonder why?) It just shows you that you only have to give something a fancy name and focus your efforts and we can really be effective when most of the time we must be sat around doing nothing. Perhaps we should be arresting people and executing search warrants all the time? We do? Oh!

The officer with scrambled egg who was in charge of this Operation will have something to put on his next promotion or transfer application to show that with his/her dynamic leadership crime was cut for two weeks and dozens of criminals were arrested. It seems to escape the notice of even the very senior management in the Force that a week later things are back to normal and we are working away in the sound knowledge that the Operation has had no long term effect whatsoever.

Sierra Charlie Speaks: Sarcasm Is Not One of the 5 'P's

Our colleagues in the Metropolis have a new-ish leader and he says that policing is all about getting results. Officers should be productive, professional, take pride in their work, improve their presence on the streets and be proud of what they do. Excellent stuff. This is almost back to Peelian Principles (another two "P"s!).

The Duty Sergeant's recent post about cordons touched a nerve for me. The other night I was posted on the cordon of quite a serious incident on our patch. I arrived after the initial urgency had worn off - having got there on foot from bloody miles away - but the investigation had hardly begun. It was to be a long night. The incident had happened at a time when there were a great many people about and word had spread far and wide. By the time I got there it had even been on the internet or local news according to one of the bystanders I chatted to.

What I am trying to say here is that nearly everyone who came up to see what was going on had already heard what had happened. People who quizzed me knew more than I did, because all I knew were the basics and had not read wild and exciting speculation on-line. For some deep animal reason, people love to see the scene of a nasty occurrence. People slow down on motorways when there has been a crash in the other direction, people swarm like flies to the scene of a violent incident on their streets.

I can almost understand why people rubber neck. But what I cannot understand is why they want to actually go in to the scene of a crime while police are still doing their bit. I know people don't always think but, seriously, why do they think it might be a good idea to trample all over the sparse evidence? What personal satisfaction do they get from seeing the bits of broken glass up close? Do they want to see blood? Have they not seen CSI?

So anyway I am at this cordon trying to answer questions without a) knowing much or b) wanting to give away any information I shouldn't and people keep asking the same questions. Innocent and nervous questions I can handle. Questions about whether this is common in the area are understandable. Requests for details are met with answers like "a crime" and "I don't know the details". But to the gentleman who asked if he could cross into the scene to use the cash point down the street, I'm afraid I used cold, dry sarcasm.

"Which bit of POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS do you think means that you can go to the cash point?" I asked in my politest tactical communications tone. "I'll take that as a "no" then" he harrumphed.

It shocked me how easily this came to me. I should be ashamed of myself. But for some reason, I am not. The cordon was there for a very good reason. I was stopping people crossing it for a very good reason.

There are other cash machines.

Sierra Charlie

Arranging Overtime

There is only one job in Utopia that is worse than mine, and that is the Duties Inspector. Unfortunately, when the Duties Inspector is on leave, I am invariably directed to take on his role. Last Wednesday was one such occasion, when I was asked to arrange for 4 officers to work either 3 or 4 hours overtime prior to their 10 hour shift beginning at 9pm. Due to my proactive background in Dystopia, it was suggested that I also work, although I am now salaried, so won't receive an extra penny. It was an easy operation to organise, as my e-mail to the officers demonstrates.

'111, 112, 215 and 449 have all indicated that they will work this Friday for the robbery patrols, and by deft of logic I have therefore selected them to work that Friday. As there's no unmarked car available there will be 2 plain clothes officers performing dedicated foot patrols around the robbery hotspots. The other 2 officers will be uniform in a marked vehicle doing the usual proactive stuff whilst also responding to any robbery incidents. It will therefore be a bit 'gutty' but you are getting paid handsomely for it. I, however, am not.

All I need to know is if Friday's officers want to do 3 hours or 4? If there's 2 of you who will work 4, then I'll come in for 5 o'clock also. If no one wants to work 4, then we'll all come in at 6 for 3. If 1 of you wants to work 4, but the other 3 want to work 3, then we won't do 5, because 2 won't be enough, as this includes another 1 which is myself, so we'll meet at 6. If all 4 want to do 3, then we'll still meet at 6, because including myself that makes 5. Don't confuse this with 3 of you working at 5, because that will still only make 4, as the other 1 will therefore be here at 6 to do 3. Conversely, if 2 want to do 5 for 4 and 2 do 6 for 3, that will be fine, because the respective totals will actually be 3 do 5 for 4 and 2 do 6 for 3. So, you see, the options are simple, either at least 2 do 4 which, including myself makes 3, from 5 to 9 for a total of 4, or all 4 plus 1 which is 5 does 6 to 9 for a total of 3.'

It's now 8:45pm on a Friday and none of the officers ever arrived.

I thought I'd made it perfectly clear.