Sunday, April 19, 2009

What the police have forgotten

The head of the IPCC (no, not the UN one - the other one) has serious concerns about policing. Join the club, mate - you and about 50 million others.

He also said police needed to remember that they were "servants, not masters" of the people.

Here's a simple guide for the police to remind them of their purpose.

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.

Hmmm. Seems simple enough - I wonder why nobody thought of it before? Oh yeah - they did, but the modern police think they know better than some ancient old Tory duffer.


bernard said...

Stan - it's probably more to do with uniformed thugs feeling invulnerable.
Policemen see themselves as robo-cops; covered from head to toe in stab/bullet proof Kevlar, impact head gear/visors, armed with tasers, pepper spray and night-sticks.
In fact, dressed like this you could fall into a pit of the deadliest snakes in the world and have your lunch.
Being faced by mere mortals wearing tee shirts and waving placards must seem like a piece of cake and oh! so hard to resist, especially if you have your mates on either side of you, ready to wade in too.....
Brown's Britain. Don't-cha-love-it.

North Northwester said...


I wonder where you think the necessity for that armour came from?
Increasing assaults on the police and propaganda-led distrust for the police from our lovely Marxian meedjah with their all coppers are fascists mantra, no doubt.

Throughout my lifetime, the BBC and its chums have increasingly portrayed the real-life police as corrupt, racist, violent and insensitive and all its arrests examples of victimization.

The Left's assumption of its 'right' to close a city centre down and intimidate residents and local workers this month is a fine example of how outside and hostile forces attack the police.

I know that New Labour has politicised them; especially the highest ranks of PC CPOs, but the rank and file are still the force that stands between decent citizens and any mob or terrorist, criminal gang or thief who fancies stealing a bit or all of our lives.

Stan said...

I don't disagree bernard - the traditional uniform gave off an aura of calm authority while never appearing threatening or intimidating. The modern fashion for policemen dressed as paramilitary thugs prepared for violence not only appears intimidating to the average joe in the street, it also conveys an impression that even the police are scared of crime.

I don#t disagree with NNW either, but the reason for it becoming common place to attack police is the same as the reason why crime has skyrocketted and murder is out of control - the collapse of the rule of law and the removal of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment.

The case of Harry Roberts is high profile at the moment. Roberts would have been hanged for his crimes if it were not for the five year suspension of the death penalty prior to it being outlawed in 1969. I don't think it's a coincidence that the government waited until virtually the last moment before making the suspension permanent to allow time for the Roberts case to slip from the collective memory.

I still maintain that the police need to return to basic nine Peelian Principles which are as valid today as they always were. In a recent encounter with a policeman (at a pub quiz - not because of illegal activity on my part) I asked him if he knew the nine principles. He didn't even know one - although, to be fair, he was at least aware of them.

dickiebo said...

Stan - you're just dead right!
As an ex-cop, I was always, needless to say, supportive of our police. But then, one day, I had their venom turned on me!! And it made me think. Before you ask; no, I'm not a skinhead. Just a 70 year old, law-abiding old man, formerly supportive of our police, government, BBC, et al.
We really do need to open our eyes.