Got any spare change mister?

Apparently, officers in 5 Police Forces are likely to be made redundant.

What do you think? I'll put next months salary on the fact they wont! It's just scaremongering amongst senior officers/journalists.
However, it does make me wonder where all the money goes. If these forces are as good at wasting money as mine is, it's probably all gone on refurbishing headquarters! In the past couple of years, stations have either closed or only have safer neighbourhood teams based in them. On my response team, we now cover an area, that was previously covered by 3 stations. Did we get any extra staff ? Did we fu*k!
I live in a decent sized village, with its own Police Station, which now lies empty. If I actually need to call a Police Officer, they now have to come from 15 miles away! A fact which doesn't fill my wife with confidence, when I'm on nights!
Guess what? Yes you got it. The Police Precept in my council tax bill, went up this year.

I think ACPO have got to realise that the public are fed up with having to pay more, for a poorer service. People need to feel reassured and you wont do that by quoting statistics. They want to know, that when they call for help, someone will be there quickly. Its hard to believe that, if they are coming from miles away!
So stop whinging to the press, because you risk alienating the Police from the public even more. Instead, start taking some common sense decisions. Stop trying to re-invent the wheel and in doing so, wasting public money. Then maybe, once we are doing what the public want, we can ask for more money in the future.

Don't travel unless it's necessary.....

I see Corporal Jones is now the official Police Spokesman on the weather. Today we had the usual half inch of slush and the media are broadcasting the bi-monthly winter message of condescending bollox. A police spokesperson said "We advise motorists not to travel, unless their journey is essential."
Excuse me, but what the hell does that actually mean? Surely, everyone that goes out in their car, thinks they can justify their journey. If the weather is really bad, then the message should be, "Don't go out. If you do, you do so at your own risk and we wont come to rescue you". If one or two stupid sightseers get lost along the way, then its just natures way of clearing out the bottom of the gene pool!
But let's face it, when are conditions, so bad that it really is advisable to stay indoors? Not very often. I watched some of the Channel 5 programme 'Ice Truckers'. Now, when the cops in Canada's Arctic region, say it's not safe to go out, then you know it's not safe. With temps often plummeting to -40 degrees and howling gales, that's just dangerous! A bit of wet snow at 3 degrees, isn't.
So come on, lets stop issuing stupid advice, every cold snap and save it for when we really have got some seriously bad weather (about once every twenty years)!

In the mean time, "DON'T PANIC" !

Career Criminal!

A Matter Of Trust

I think one legacy of Tony Blair’s and Gordon Brown’s governments, has got to be the way the nanny state tries to legislate, to remove all risk. This interference has found its way into the Police. Nowadays, we have a policy for virtually every possibility and woe betides anyone who doesn’t follow it. The trouble with all these policies, is that ‘ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL’.
In the past, an organisation would rely on its experienced staff, to spontaneously decide the appropriate course of action, for any given set of circumstances. It was called ‘EXPERIENCE’! Yes, occasionally, mistakes were made. But that is a fact of life. No one is perfect and neither is any policy.
There is a huge difference between risk management and risk avoidance. Life is all about managing risk. For instance, everyone takes a risk when asking their partner ‘out’ for their first date. Will they tell me to get lost or will they say yes? It’s a risk you have to take, because you can never be certain of the answer. However, you manage that risk by finding out a little about the person, prior to asking. You add up the odds of a achieving a positive answer and if they are favourable, you ask the question. Those who have experience of being rejected before, can spot the signs of a potential negative answer, better than those with no experience.
As someone who has been in the Police for two decades, I consider myself to be reasonably experienced. There are not too many sets of circumstances, that I have not encountered before. I am in no way perfect, but if I don’t know the answer, I usually know where to find it. Unfortunately, my experience counts for nothing nowadays. Virtually every action I take, is governed by some policy or other. I am no longer allowed to think for myself and decide the best course of action for the situation. I have to follow policy.
Well, as I said, one size does not fit all. More often than not, the well meaning risk aversion policy, is counter-productive for the parties involved. Unfortunately, people will continue to be murdered by their partners, despite ‘domestic violence policies. Children will continue to have play ground fights, despite ‘anti-bullying’ policies.
So, come on ACPO. Trust your staff to do the job they have been trained to do. Let them make their own informed decisions. Let them use their experience. You never know, it might actually lead to a happy workforce and you know what that leads to. Better productivity. Obviously, if they continue to make the same ‘wrong’ decisions, then deal with them appropriately, but give them a chance.

Depression

These three stories this week are either a tragic coincidence, or a sign of the stresses we are facing nowadays. I have had various bouts of depression in my life, but fortunately have not suffered like those 3 must have.
Whilst these deaths may be linked to domestic circumstances, there is no doubt in my mind, that the pressure of working in the modern day Police Service, takes its toll on ones sanity. Perhaps more needs to be done, for the individuals and their colleagues, to recognise the danger signs, before things become desperate. Obviously there is no easy answer.
My thoughts are with the families of Michael Todd, Neil Munro and Richard Fuller. R.I.P.

Court Results

This story doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I very rarely get to hear about the result of any of the cases I have dealt with. It's often quite embarrassing, when you bump into an i/p a few months down the line and they ask you what you think about the result. You then have to admit that you don't know what it was.
In my area, the best way to find out, is to read the court section of the local paper!
If we send someone up to the magistrates for a remand or breach of bail, we have to wait 2-3 days to find out the result. Quite often the offenders are out breaching their newly imposed bail conditions, but we don't know what the conditions are! I've had an i/p screaming at me to arrest an offender for breach of bail, but we have no record of the conditions and had to let him go!
I'm not really interested in silly statistics, but I think keeping a record of convictions, is quite important.

Another Stupid Idea

It seems that the liberal elite are coming up with some more of their stupid ideas.
When will these idiots get real? I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a 'poor' addict. Certainly, when it comes to drugs, the users are all criminals. There may be one or two people out there, who were injected against there will, a number of times, to become addicts, but I can't imagine there are many. The rest, all chose to take drugs. Once they are addicted, they have three choices. Either give up, find a legal way of financing their addiction, or turn to crime. The vast majority of drug addicts choose the latter. From my experiences, a lot of our local addicts, were recidivists, before they became addicted to drugs.
This new policy, once again, takes no account of the victims. Well, I'm sorry, but that is just not good enough. Lord Phillips, have you ever visited an elderly victim of a handbag snatch? I very much doubt it. What you deem to be a crime, that the poor perpetrator can't be expected to avoid committing, can have a devastating effect on its victim. These victims need protecting from criminals with no morals, not to be made to feel sorry for them.
What sort of message do you think this sends out to addicts? Carry on as you are, because we feel sorry for you!
Stop meddling.
I'd bet the Liberal Elite would change their minds, if they were forced to live next door to a crack house!

Loyalty Scheme

I think some of the local chavs think the Police have a loyalty scheme, judging by the number of calls they make to us! Well, I'm sorry, but we wont be offering any air miles or coupons, even if you do make a dozen calls in as many days!
On the contrary, I think we should operate something similar to the breakdown companies, no-call discounts. We could say that everyone is entitled to 3 free 999 calls a year. After that, they have to start paying for investigations. That would put a stop to some of the childish nonesense, that gets reported to us, day in, day out.
"Yes sir, we will send an officer out to you. That will be £50 call out fee, £30 for the first half an hour, then £20 for every half an hour spent investigating the matter, after that! If you keep every appointment, including appearing at court as a witness, you will be entitled to a 75% discount."
I think that's fair. Hopefully, it would cut out the crap, leaving us more time to investigate proper crime!
If not then we could always resort to this

Waste of Money

Apologies for the lack of posts this week, had computer problems!

Reading this article, has made me realise, what a gravy train the criminal justice system is. That man has no chance of proving his innocence, but keeps trying it on, with costly appeals, to find legal loopholes. The question is, who is responsible for starting these appeals? I suspect it is partly the prisoner and partly his legal team, who are on to a nice little earner, either way.

However, the state has still got to defend these appeals. Even if costs are awarded against the prisoner, the state are still going to be out of pocket.

Whilst we have to be careful not to send innocent people to prison, so we should also be careful not to let guilty people free, on some red tape loophole.

I suspect this decision, is just another example of modern society. It's not really a decision, just a case of sitting on the fence and getting someone else to make a decision.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

So the ACPO crime chief is concerned that the British Crime Survey, is not accurate. Well Whoopey Doo! Who cares?

I think he is just trying to get himself, another job. Chief in charge of re-counting, the incalculable!

What does it matter, what figures they use? Someone, will always be able to prove they are innaccurate.

When will our leaders, stop worrying about statistics? They will show, whatever you want them to show!
If you don't like the number of crimes, get Tom Cruise in to detect them all, before they are even committed!

Technological Advances in Investigation

PMSL