A Need for Justice: Part One

On the off-chance that Dan Winkledick or Pindick Foster from The Times are reading this posting, I would like to assure them that I am not in fact a 17th Century Philosopher. I am indeed a serving police officer. Should they wish to meet me in person in order for me to prove this fact, I will be more than happy to do so. However, I will be accompanied by my close friends, left and right fists, who are eager to meet them also.

Am I concerned about the possibility that some hack, noting the interest the 'scoop' in The Times generated, may decide to identify little old me? Well, maybe not concerned, but definitely perturbed. What purpose has it served in the case of DC Horton? None, save to stifle any further career development for the poor man. I am sure Judge Eady did not forget the officer's scathing analysis of the quality of Judges since New Labour has been in power. Unfortunately I can no longer refer to Nightjack's blog to remind myself of exactly what he said. It has been deleted. Consigned to history and the memory of so many people who gained so much enjoyment from what he had written.

My wife is understandably concerned. We have a young family and my career is going well. Do I really want to jeopardise all that I have achieved thus far for something that cannot provide any alternative employment or income for me? What if I received the ultimate discipline sanction - dismissal? What would, what could I do instead? Being a police officer isn't a job, it's a vocation, it's part of you. I would hate to no longer be in a position to help people who need my help. I would hate not being able to arrest the bad guys; to experience that deep sense of satisfaction I gain when I see them convicted and sentenced to a lengthy stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure. And so, over the next couple of days, I am to give some consideration about whether to continue blogging or not.

In the event that I do decide to call it a day, I wanted to go back to my original purpose set out in my first ever posting, which was to consider the nature of policing in a philosophical context...

Let me begin by apologising for making no apologies that it will indeed be philosophy oriented. I did say at the beginning of my blogging career that it would involve philosophy, but apart from just the one posting I have very rarely mentioned it. The daily barrage of criticism that the media directs at the police service compels me to respond, as much of it is without foundation or justification. My need to respond is also indicative of the pride I feel from being a police officer, of the utmost respect I have for my colleagues - some of whom perform extremely dangerous roles, but for smaller money than I am paid - but all of whom share the same burning desire to provide a high quality of service to the public. Not that my opinion makes a jot of difference, but it does mean my wife has to hear less and less about what irks me as I vent spleen in cyberspace.

If we ever are to arrive at a conclusion about how the nation should be policed, we first need to understand the different theories surrounding the role of the state. After all, as Plato once said, "There's no use complaining that one toga feels more comfortable over another, without first understanding the different materials that went into the making of those togas." This isn't actually written down in any of his works, but I imagine that he could have said it to his friends over a glass of wine in the Taverna one evening.

To answer this question, I shall briefly explain the metaphysical theories of Hobbes and Locke, who imagined what life would have been like in a hypothetical state of nature, and the development of a Social Contract that came about to provide protection to the nation's citizens. I'll also explain the Empirical theory of David Hume, who looked at the world around him as it was, and arrived at his own conclusions. Whereas I don't agree with the Social Contract theories, Hobbes and Locke evidently did better at school than I, and are therefore worthy of consideration. Regardless of the manner in which all three philosophers approached the function of the state, they all arrived at the same conclusion: there is a need for justice.

For Hobbes, the original state of nature saw mankind in a constant state of war, where the life of man was, 'nasty, brutish and short'. The implicitly predatory, avaricious and self-destructive nature of mankind led Hobbes to be extremely pessimistic about our future. Our indifference to one another and the use of force by men to secure what they desired would continue to the extent that they would not rest until there was no other power great enough to endanger them in their quest. This sounds remarkably prophetic when you consider the nature of the criminals we deal with today, doesn't it? Only a ruthless ruler - a Leviathan - could secure the peace we crave. Only the toughest state with a supreme sovereign in power could control our instinctual urges. No room for Human Rights here. Not for criminals at least. This was the Social Contract in Hobbes' world, where we gave up many rights in order for protection. Justice would be harsh, and if the Leviathan failed to deliver, the Social Contract would be broken and the Leviathan removed. Something Gordon Brown should bear in mind.

I'll leave you to think on the above, and will post the second part over the next two day's or so.

I hope I have the fortitude and stubbornness to determine that it won't be my last post.

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.

The Problem with Preventative Policing

One particular area of preventative policing that has recently been used to criticise the police, specifically the MPS, has been the use of Section 44 powers under the Terrorism Act. Since 2007 when two terrorism attacks were successfully thwarted, the number of black people stopped under this power has increased by 322%, Asians 277% and white people 185%. These figures have been used to argue that the MPS still is, in essence, institutionally racist. I would argue that this tactic provides a visible reassurance to the community, and I have NEVER received a complaint from a member of the public who has been stopped under this power in Utopia. The statistics say nothing of the location of where the searches have been conducted, or at what iconic sites and transport hubs, and what the ethnic demographics are where those sites are placed. More importantly, there have been no successful terrorist attacks since 2007.

Contrast this with the use of Section 60 CJPO stop and searches under Operation Blunt, used as a tactic to reduce knife-enabled crime and the number of teenage murders in London. There is the same disproportionality between white people being searched and those from visible ethnic minorities. Black youths are 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched than whites; it still targets specific locations at specific times and it has successfully reduced knife-enabled crime by 27% in 9 of the 10 Boroughs where it has been used. Research by the Children's Commission also revealed that a quarter of young people interviewed actually wanted to see more widespread use of these searches, as the visible police presence made them feel safer. I have found no such research on the impact of Section 44 searches on the wider public.

The MPS is the victim of its own success in preventative policing. If nothing happens critics will suggest that it would never have happened anyway, and that the use of S44 searches for example, is therefore an abuse of legislation. If something does happen and the MPS had done nothing to prevent it, critics will ask why, as with the 7/7 bombings. Alternatively, if the MPS is seen to be doing something but the problem persists, albeit at a significantly reduced level, it is hailed to be a success, as in the case of Operation Blunt.

The media and human rights commentators have no hesitation in saying that the MPS is behaving in a discriminatory manner towards ethinc minorities through its use of S44 powers, but they dare not say the same for S60. It is a sad indictment on the character of these people that they feel that the emotional trauma of 7/7 is so diminished in our collective memory that their comments will not cause public outrage to be directed back towards them. They would never, ever dare level the same criticism at the MPS for using robust search tactics to stop such a sensitive and topical issue as youth murder. The media and human rights commentators are nothing but opportunistic cowards who seize upon every opportunity to lambast the police service, much of it unfounded.

The poor old MPS, it really is a case of 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned whatever you do.' However, the reality is the MPS does a damned fine job.

Your Government Wants You...

...to stop moaning about crime; to stop finding criminals not guilty; to pay convicted criminals money for being released early from prison (the Utopian Police Force can then get a further sanctioned detection when they've re-arrested them for re-burglarising you).

This government has transformed the police services of England and Wales from one that is accountable to the British public and whose success was measured by the support it received from that public, into one that is accountable to the Home Office and therefore only to the government. Traditionally, the police service was measured through the British Crime Survey, which allowed us (the police) to determine if the fear of crime was increasing or decreasing amongst the public.

However, the government felt that you are all a frighfully worrisome lot, who wrongly declared that the fear of crime was rising, despite the best efforts of the government to prove the contrary. So how did New Labour overcome these unfavourable statistics? Simple. Create another system whereby different statistics would be presented, demonstrating that crime was in fact reducing. In came the measuring of police performance through sanctioned detections. Much has been said about the pressures officers are under to administer these to hardened criminals, such as the boy who threw an egg at a window and who subsequently received a youth reprimand for criminal damage, so I will say no more. Nevertheless, more people who were being arrested were being charged, thanks to the determination of the government to stop police officers from using their discretionary powers in such matters.

It's a little known fact, but the government also wanted to do away with a crucial element of the British judicial system that has been adopted, and held in high regard, by nations throughout the world - the right to trial by jury. Mr Blair viewed the British public with utter contempt, believing you to be incapable of rational thought. Too many of you found that too many of the evidently guilty were, in your opinion, innocent. This put the Crown Prosecution Service in an unfavourable light and highlighted the possibility that defence barristers and solicitors are much better at their job than the Crown (although this is well known to be a fact amongst police officers). As you have probably deduced by now, this government adores statistics and you, the British pubilc, were messing their statistics up.

Not too many years ago, the charging decision lay with the Custody Sergeant. They would weigh up all of the evidence presented to them from the investigating officer, and should that evidence not be watertight, would frequently charge the suspect whilst muttering the words ,"We'll let the magistrate/jury decide". It is this component of our constitution - the right to a fair trial - that has been long accepted as being a fundamental human right. However, the right to a fair trial applies equally to the victims as well as the accused. This right is now being circumvented, because the investigating officer now goes direct to the CPS for 'charging 'advice' (for 'charging advice' please read 'No Further Action'). Bound by their own performance targets, unless the CPS is absolutely satisfied that a successful prosecution will ensue, they will not recommend a charge. So, if the suspect comes up with a really good excuse in interview (or invariably not a really good one, just an excuse) the CPS will not charge because you might find them innocent. You might have found them guilty, but we'll never know. Still, the number of convictions achieved at court now look excellent, all thanks to the government - the statistics prove it!

This government has, as in many areas of its policy, attempted to predict social change but has completely failed, largely because it consists of individuals who do not possess the necessary experience to facilitate it. Would you feel more comfortable knowing that a senior police officer recommended new legislation for reducing crime? Or would you prefer some individual who graduated from Oxford, and who thought a Council Estate was a make of car, to make these decisions? I've just realised that most of the Chief Constables fit into both of these categories, but you get my drift. To highlight the point I am making, consider the raft of legislation this government introduced since it came into power in 1997. 365 Acts of Parliament and 32,000 statutory instruments. There were 64,530 prisoners in 1999, now there are over 81,016. All very noble, but not one minister had the foresight to see that this would require more prisons. Remarkable.

I am sure that the government would argue that, nevertheless, more of the right people are being sent to prison. As a police officer, I and many victims can also tell you that more of the wrong people are also being released early due to prison overcrowding. Oh, and they are to be given more money upon early release to the tune of £100 and 6-month's rent paid (that's my tax money and the victim's tax money) to compensate them for the loss of security that they would have otherwise enjoyed at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Incidently, this is the same government that refused to back-date police officer's pay to the princely sum of £155 each. How's that for a statistic?