My Values Are All Wrong

As it has warmed up a little bit recently I decided to leave the confines of the office and accompany some of my team who were executing a search warrant.

The warrant was at the home of a family that are well known to us. It is a five bedroom council house occupied by mum, dad and five children. There are actually eight children but the eldest is in prison and the next two are being looked after by other relatives as the parents cannot cope with them. The remaining five are aged between 2 and 12. Neither mum or dad have worked for at least 15 years and live on benefits.

We had information that to supplement his benefits, dad deals cannabis and cocaine, largely to local teenagers. Apart from the serious risks to the users, this is undermining our reputation in the community, hence the search.

On arrival, the back door is open and we go in. There isn't a carpet anywhere. The house is filthy and absolutely stinks. There are two piles of dog faeces in the house and a recent pool of wee. The kitchen is disgusting with dirty dishes all over the place and stale food. The kids are sleeping on mattresses with a blanket or sleeping bag. Not a sheet in sight. Police officers will not think this is anything unusual and I have been in far worse houses.

Dad gets arrested with a bit of cannabis. There is not enough to consider a charge of dealing. But hopefully the message will get through to him.

I have mentioned before that I attend a regular meeting with partners where we discuss those young people that are causing problems in the community. Usually those committing crime and anti social behaviour. Two of the children of this family were on the next agenda. I felt it was appropriate to mention that we had executed a drugs warrant at the address and the state of the house. The Local Authority were very interested as they have been trying to get into the house to inspect it for over a year. Children's Services and the Youth Offending Team took a different view.

I was rebuked for judging people by my own values. Apparently, living in a filthy slum doesn't make them bad people or parents and if they choose to live like that we should not criticise their choice of lifestyle. Because I choose to live in a clean environment and wash up regularly and clean up dog poo immediately that does not make me a better person than them.

I pointed out that if the family chose to live in a filthy mess and their children were model citizens who were not being arrested almost daily and involved in local anti social behaviour. If the children attended school regularly and the parents were not drug dealing but set a good example they might have a point.

No I was told. They have just chosen a different lifestyle with different values and I must learn to understand and respect this. I was losing it at this point. They haven't chosen a lifestyle. They are lazy, idle people who have decided that a life of benefits and banging out children beats working. Setting boundaries and being a role model are vital facets of parenting. What are they teaching their children? Perhaps if these parents washed their children's clothes, they wouldn't smell and they would attend school as there would be less risk of them being ostracised by other children. Perhaps if the parents introduced a bit of order and discipline and put them to bed instead of allowing them to run around all night until they dropped they might stop committing offences and get some education and the chance of a job and a future.

I was stared at as if I was some right wing bigot for whom there was no hope. I was obviously never going to see this light that they have found. After a further brief conversation these services decided that the 'work' they were doing with this family was perfectly adequate and they didn't need to be doing any more. They are always 'working' with families. This usually means seeing them once every week or two and having a nice chat.

I hope to God that the new Government addresses the liberal (small l) cesspit that has been allowed to take over all levels of the criminal justice system and we get back to some common sense and reality as soon as possible.

Neighbourhood Priorities

Good idea or just a pillock?

I have said before that I have worked in Neighbourhood Policing for many years and I am a big fan of local officers tackling the problem people and places and making neighbourhoods safer and nicer places to live and work in.

My teams clearly understand that I want the bad people arrested or prosecuted. I want them off the streets or towing the line on an ASBO or whatever it takes.

I get fed up, and quite frankly embarrassed, when I see some of the gimmicks that neighbourhood teams sometimes dream up to get a bit of publicity. Or is it someone trying to make a name for themselves when they put in for their promotion board?

Do you remember this stunt, where officers in East London were offering to follow people home from the cash point if they were worried about getting mugged. My question at the time was, if you have a mugging problem, what are you doing to catch the offenders? Why can't the neighbourhood teams be out visible deterring these offences anyway. If you don't have a mugging problem all you are doing is raising the fear of crime.

Now we have PCSO Vince Preston out on a BMX bike. He claims young people are more likely to talk to him and interact with him on a BMX rather than a normal bike. Vince, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know who dreamt up this idea and you may just be the stooge for someone else's stupidity. You are not supposed to be regressing and becoming one of the youths that rides round on one of these things. You are supposed to be part of the police service and have the respect of the people you police. Riding around on a BMX just makes you open to ridicule and gains nothing.

Sorry to sound so negative but I wish we would just stick to the basics. In my experience the public just want us to be visible and enforce the law. That is our job, using discretion where appropriate. It is not to keep inventing ways of avoiding doing just that.

UK - A Dumping Ground for Foreign Criminals?

Lord Justice Moses one of the judges who allowed 2 Tamils to remain in UK as they threatened to kill themselves if deported

'The decision defies all common sense' Immigration Minister Phil Woolas. Tough words but you have been in power 13 years. Let's have some action!


Is it me or am I reading more and more stories about illegal immigrants committing serious crimes in our country? Some are undoubtedly thrown out but many others are allowed to stay here. Our judicial system seems to be the only one in the world that takes any notice of the Human Rights Act and it appears that some seriously dangerous offenders are being allowed to stay here in case we breach their rights or they might suffer further punishment if they are returned from whence they came.



I don't think this was being considered by the authors of the legislation, or this. And this man should have have some of his body parts removed for his crimes. If you come from a culture where committing offences carries severe penalties why should you be allowed to come here and commit those offences and not be returned home to face the consequences? And if you want to kill yourself because you have been sent home is that our concern? We won't deport any illegal immigrants if they all try that little wheeze.



This country is going mad.

Town Centre Violence

I have just spent the weekend supporting the regular response officers. Every weekend officers from departments all over the county work a Friday and Saturday night to help deal with the additional calls that largely come about because of excessive drinking. It is fair to say that some of my colleagues don't like this and try to avoid it. Personally, I feel we all need to do our bit and help out.

I worked shifts in a town centre for many years and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a constant battle between the licensed premises and the police. We had our irresponsible pubs who allowed underage drinkers and drunkenness and they got visited every Friday and Saturday. I made it clear to the licensees that if they were not prepared to act responsibly I would control their premises and they would be prosecuted if they didn't start acting responsibly. I saw a number of licensees off as they didn't listen to the advice.

Most licensees are managers or tenants and are under pressure to meet targets. I can see why it is tempting to sell to kids, drunks etc. I supported extended opening hours and I hoped that this might mean we adopted a more Continental approach to drinking. Outside our town centres, this has happened to a large extent. Successful pubs have turned to selling food to survive. Those that don't make this transition are closing in their droves as the recession, smoking ban and drinking (at home) habits change.

This weekend I patrolled the town centre and visited a number of our large modern pubs. I was sad to see that here the mentality still seems to be, pack as many people in as you can, sell as much drink as you can and let the police pick up the pieces. If you visit these large town centre pubs during the week you will see tables and chairs laid out, but on Fridays and Saturdays the pubs clear away all the tables and chairs and play loud music. You end up with hundreds of drinkers stood around. They cannot have a conversation because the music is too loud and so they just drink. There are nowhere near enough staff working to monitor who is drunk and shouldn't have any more.

The results of all this are that I saw people throwing up in the street, there were four fights in pubs, five fights over taxi's and dozens of drunken idiots wandering around shouting and swearing. We also found one young woman semi conscious in a car park because she was so drunk and who required to go to hospital. Young woman in this state are so vulnerable to rape and sexual abuse. There were 18 arrests on Friday and 13 on Saturday linked to drunken behaviour.

I am generally against introducing more and more legislation to control behaviour. We have seen too much of this over the last 20 years. It occurs to me though that where town centre drunkenness is problematic an area could be declared as such and all licensees required to serve alcohol only to people sat at tables. This might get us back to the situation we want to be in. People sat in pubs having conversation rather than standing around drinking and listening to deafening music. Drinks would be more expensive as less would be sold, but profit margins maintained.

More of the Same

This is Mark Johnson reformed offender and drug user. He clearly still needs a lot of help.

I have written quite a bit recently about sentencing, consequences and boundaries. This article in the Guardian caught my eye and I thought I cannot let it go without making some comment.

I am sure some of you will be thinking what the hell does he expect from the Guardian. This article is just so woolly and full of inaccuracies I couldn't ignore it.

'However much we sympathise, the fury of those who have been affected by crime should not find its way into government policy.' Says Mark Johnson reformed offender and drug user.

'Switch on the TV or open a newspaper and you will be confronted by a victim of crime.'

Not on my telly or in my papers you won't. Occasionally victims of child killings gain a lot of coverage such as the parents of Sarah Payne and Jamie Bulger. Generally, victims of crime have no voice and no influence at all with regard to the sentencing of offenders.

'Everyone can empathise with their pain, and we expect them to make angry, ill-considered demands for retribution. But their fury should not dominate the news agenda – or, worse, find its way into government policy.'

You cannot empathise with a parent whose child has been murdered. You might sympathise but you clearly cannot empathise. Angry victims do sometimes make demands for retribution but I cannot think of one example where a victims demands have resulted in draconian sentences. Public outrage may have influenced sentencing in some high profile cases but not the demands of victims.

'But when children's commissioner Maggie Atkinson recently suggested that 10-year-olds who commit crimes should not be treated as adults, and that they need a more therapeutic approach than pure containment, the justice ministry was tight-lipped and the public apparently apoplectic.
Atkinson is a professional who is paid to analyse what is happening to our children. We should listen to her and the other experts whose views are based on science, not raw emotion. She has seen that our penal system is designed to protect the public and has no real investment in changing people. So when victim support groups get incandescent at the cost of keeping young offenders in secure units, I agree with them. Some £200,000 a year is too much to spend if public protection is the only outcome and the child receives no intensive rehabilitation.'

I don't recall the public outcry this woman apparently caused. Most people thought you don't know what you are talking about and ignored her. Why should we listen to these supposed experts? Most young people, not all, who commit offences come from backgrounds where they need help. I think we are all agreed on that. What the author and Atkinson don't seem to understand is that as well as help they need boundaries and consequences. Until the so called experts ruining our rehabilitation and justice systems realise this, nothing will change.

'It is a public misconception that prisons are places where offenders go to change. In fact, HM Inspectorate of Prisons has found that more than 70% of young male offenders want to change, but 42% said jail did not provide them with the help or tools to do so.'

There is no misconception that prisons are where offenders go to change. We all know that prisons are places where offenders learn other offending skills and are likely to re-offend on release. I want prisons to be places where offenders are helped and educated or trained and early release depends on achievement. 42% of offenders didn't feel prison helped them. Now there is a shock! Not! I am only surprised it wasn't higher.

'Calm, scientific voices are telling us that when children commit crime they have not made a moral choice. They have gone too far because the mechanism that holds back their healthier peers doesn't work for them for psychological and physiological reasons.'

'Hating and containing them is easy. Both are easy vote-catchers. But these are sick children. Our object should be to care for them so that they can change and get well. Hatred is an expensive waste of public money.'

For God's sake! With this sort of view influencing and changing our justice system there is no hope. So the child that beats another has no problem with their moral code of conduct they are just sick and we should just accept this and help them. I say again, until these people understand that help has to go hand in hand with strict boundaries and consequences we will continue to see more and more violence and offending by young people. Sometimes that help and the boundaries and consequences will have to take place in custody for the protection of the public, not because of hatred and cost.