The death of David Askew, hounded to death by gangs of youths, has brought out the police to tell us that they did "everything they could" to stop his tormentors. I believe that they believe they did - but I do not believe that they did.
The trouble is, the police have forgotten what they are there for. They think - or rather, the people who determine strategy think - that the job of the police is to report offences and, if possible, solve crimes. Although that is a part of what they do it is NOT the purpose of the police force. So, just to remind the police of what their job is, here - once again - is Sir Robert Peel's first principle.
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
Did you notice that? In case you didn't let me write it again - this time with some emphasis.
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
Get it now?
No. I don't think you did completely. So let me add a little more emphasis.
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
Now you see it don't you? No - I can see that you still don't completely understand it so, one last time, here it is with some added emphasis.
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
Now you get it - so what are you going to do about it? David Askew died because the police failed in their basic mission - to prevent crime and disorder. They might insist that they did everything they could - I know they did not because they failed to fulfil even the basic purpose for their existence.
Showing posts with label Peelian Principles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peelian Principles. Show all posts
Friday, March 12, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The thin hi-vis yellow line
The Telegraph wonders whether single beat patrols as re-introduced by the new Met chief is going to be enough to win back public support.
It is rare to see a bobby patrolling alone, yet it used to be unusual to see them on the beat together. It is heartening, then, to learn that London's new police chief, Sir Paul Stephenson, intends to require his officers to patrol as singletons except when it would be patently dangerous to do so. This would double police visibility and make officers more likely to communicate with members of the public instead of with each other.
To be honest, around my way it is rare to see a bobby who isn't in a patrol car. In the last fortnight I can only recall seeing one policewoman not in a car - and she was in a garage buying sweets while her colleague waited on the forecourt in a large Volvo estate with the engine running. We have PCSOs of course and they patrol in pairs as they swoop on the evil wrongdoers of Slough who dare to park adjacent to the cash point for two minutes.
The Telegraph also refers to something I feel strongly about.
There will be arguments, especially from the Police Federation, that the job is more dangerous than it once was; and in some inner-city estates this may well be true, though that owes much to the loss of authority that has come with changes to the way the police act and dress.
The way the police act and dress is vitally important. First off, the way they act towards the general public is often, at best patronising and at worst down right rude and aggressive. But the way they dress is my biggest issue. The purpose of the uniform was to establish authority without appearing threatening to the general public and the reason the police used to wear those strange pointy helmets was to make them visible. It worked - you could spot a policeman in a crowd a mile off and when you met him up close he came across as a reassuring authority figure.
Now they stroll around in peaked caps and wearing luminous hi-vis jerkins which give them all the authority of a motorway maintenance worker. Add on the stab vest and the jumble of equipment hanging around their waist and the first thing that strikes you when you come across a modern policeman is that they are all set for a spot of violence. If the police go around always looking as if they expect violence to erupt at any moment is it any wonder that the general public have a raised fear of crime?
Getting the police back on the streets, getting them back in proper uniforms and behaving properly towards the average citizen would all be good moves, but the single most important thing they could do is reacquaint themselves with the 9 principles of policing as laid down by Peel. They are as relevant today as they have always been.
It is rare to see a bobby patrolling alone, yet it used to be unusual to see them on the beat together. It is heartening, then, to learn that London's new police chief, Sir Paul Stephenson, intends to require his officers to patrol as singletons except when it would be patently dangerous to do so. This would double police visibility and make officers more likely to communicate with members of the public instead of with each other.
To be honest, around my way it is rare to see a bobby who isn't in a patrol car. In the last fortnight I can only recall seeing one policewoman not in a car - and she was in a garage buying sweets while her colleague waited on the forecourt in a large Volvo estate with the engine running. We have PCSOs of course and they patrol in pairs as they swoop on the evil wrongdoers of Slough who dare to park adjacent to the cash point for two minutes.
The Telegraph also refers to something I feel strongly about.
There will be arguments, especially from the Police Federation, that the job is more dangerous than it once was; and in some inner-city estates this may well be true, though that owes much to the loss of authority that has come with changes to the way the police act and dress.
The way the police act and dress is vitally important. First off, the way they act towards the general public is often, at best patronising and at worst down right rude and aggressive. But the way they dress is my biggest issue. The purpose of the uniform was to establish authority without appearing threatening to the general public and the reason the police used to wear those strange pointy helmets was to make them visible. It worked - you could spot a policeman in a crowd a mile off and when you met him up close he came across as a reassuring authority figure.
Now they stroll around in peaked caps and wearing luminous hi-vis jerkins which give them all the authority of a motorway maintenance worker. Add on the stab vest and the jumble of equipment hanging around their waist and the first thing that strikes you when you come across a modern policeman is that they are all set for a spot of violence. If the police go around always looking as if they expect violence to erupt at any moment is it any wonder that the general public have a raised fear of crime?
Getting the police back on the streets, getting them back in proper uniforms and behaving properly towards the average citizen would all be good moves, but the single most important thing they could do is reacquaint themselves with the 9 principles of policing as laid down by Peel. They are as relevant today as they have always been.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Why Blair had to go
Sir Ian Blair has vindicated Mayor Johnson's sacking of him and demonstrated once and for all that he was a policeman who has completely forgotten the purpose of policing. He has suggested that offenders on community service should wear hi-vis vests.
He said offenders wearing high visibility vests is "unpalatable" but could help restore confidence in the courts.
Unpalatable? Why is it unpalatable? Just about everyone who works outdoors wears hi-vis jackets today - including the police, which is why it is hard to tell the difference between a copper and a navvy from a distance. In fact, if you see someone working outdoors who isn't wearing a hi-vis jacket you can be fairly sure it is some thug seeing out his community service order for biting the ear off his girlfriend.
If you are going to make offenders work in the community - give them bright pink overalls with dark blue arrows over them. Anyway - so why this bright idea, Sir Ian (scuse the pun).
Speaking at the annual Longford lecture, where speakers discuss questions of social and penal reform, Britain's most senior police officer said the public will always want criminals locked up if they see nothing else is effective.
"While many people accept prisons are not the answer to everything, they do not believe community sentences work because they do not see them happen."
Can you see where this is going? Yep - Joe Public is too dumb to understand 'cos we don't see it working. Nothing to do with the fact that people on community service orders committed over 120 murders between 2006 and April this year at all. With all due respect to Sir Ian (i.e. none) people like him don't understand that community service orders are not liked because he lives in an ivory tower well away from the sink estates and perpetual mayhem that is inflicted on the daily lives of people by low level crime which is usually punished ineffectually by community service orders.
So why do I think this proves that Blair has completely forgotten the purpose of policing?
Peelian principles. Number nine in particular.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
A copper who doesn't know that is out of touch with people and out of touch with policing - we will be so much better off without this man in charge. Those 9 principles are as relevant today as they were when Peel first thought of them. Coppers like Blair can recite police diversity mantras word for word, but can not remember the basic 9 principles of policing.
Good riddance to him.
He said offenders wearing high visibility vests is "unpalatable" but could help restore confidence in the courts.
Unpalatable? Why is it unpalatable? Just about everyone who works outdoors wears hi-vis jackets today - including the police, which is why it is hard to tell the difference between a copper and a navvy from a distance. In fact, if you see someone working outdoors who isn't wearing a hi-vis jacket you can be fairly sure it is some thug seeing out his community service order for biting the ear off his girlfriend.
If you are going to make offenders work in the community - give them bright pink overalls with dark blue arrows over them. Anyway - so why this bright idea, Sir Ian (scuse the pun).
Speaking at the annual Longford lecture, where speakers discuss questions of social and penal reform, Britain's most senior police officer said the public will always want criminals locked up if they see nothing else is effective.
"While many people accept prisons are not the answer to everything, they do not believe community sentences work because they do not see them happen."
Can you see where this is going? Yep - Joe Public is too dumb to understand 'cos we don't see it working. Nothing to do with the fact that people on community service orders committed over 120 murders between 2006 and April this year at all. With all due respect to Sir Ian (i.e. none) people like him don't understand that community service orders are not liked because he lives in an ivory tower well away from the sink estates and perpetual mayhem that is inflicted on the daily lives of people by low level crime which is usually punished ineffectually by community service orders.
So why do I think this proves that Blair has completely forgotten the purpose of policing?
Peelian principles. Number nine in particular.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
A copper who doesn't know that is out of touch with people and out of touch with policing - we will be so much better off without this man in charge. Those 9 principles are as relevant today as they were when Peel first thought of them. Coppers like Blair can recite police diversity mantras word for word, but can not remember the basic 9 principles of policing.
Good riddance to him.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
"Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime"
Britain's top cop has actually said something sensible for a change.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, believes there is "almost no public faith" in crime figures.
Damn right. There is also almost no public faith in the police doing their job and the public on the whole believe the police would rather arrest a soft target than catch real criminals as this is easier and looks good on the figures.
This is why Britain is becoming a "walk-on-by" society where people no longer bother to intervene when they see a crime being committed as they worry about being arrested themselves.
One of the reasons for that is the fault of the police themselves who have forgotten the basic Peelian principles on which their occupation was founded - notably this one.
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.
Blair points to New York as a model - but not for how to deal with crime, only how to deal with statistics.
Sir Ian also said the media and politicians had weakened confidence, adding that there was more faith in simpler statistics in New York, US.
The Met chief said: "Few question the crime figures in New York. Residents largely accept that their city is safer than it was.
"And that is because New York has not fiddled about with how they collect crime statistics in the way the UK has."
And it is on this point that he is half right. Few people question the crime figures in New York because they can see the evidence for themselves. Residents accept their city is safer than it was because they see the police doing their job of preventing crime and disorder - not just trying to detect crime and completely ignoring disorder as our police do - and can see the evidence with their own eyes.
Once again - as all things relating to the police do - this comes back to the principles laid down by Peel. This time it is principle number 9.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
New York has an absence of crime and disorder and that is why people believe the figures. London does not which is why Londoners do not. When Sir Ian Blair talks about belief in crime figures he is making the fundamental mistake which Peel warned that the police should not do. He is trying to use the crime figures as visible evidence of police action in tackling crime.
Sir Ian Blair shares a title with Sir Robert Peel - but that is about all they do have in common. What a shame he doesn't share Peel's vision or his ability to lay down in clear, concise terms what the police are about.
If Blair really wants to win back public confidence he should go back to Peel's nine principles and study and understand them. You don't need a degree in English language to read and understand this .....
"Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime." Sir Robert Peel
Simple.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, believes there is "almost no public faith" in crime figures.
Damn right. There is also almost no public faith in the police doing their job and the public on the whole believe the police would rather arrest a soft target than catch real criminals as this is easier and looks good on the figures.
This is why Britain is becoming a "walk-on-by" society where people no longer bother to intervene when they see a crime being committed as they worry about being arrested themselves.
One of the reasons for that is the fault of the police themselves who have forgotten the basic Peelian principles on which their occupation was founded - notably this one.
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.
Blair points to New York as a model - but not for how to deal with crime, only how to deal with statistics.
Sir Ian also said the media and politicians had weakened confidence, adding that there was more faith in simpler statistics in New York, US.
The Met chief said: "Few question the crime figures in New York. Residents largely accept that their city is safer than it was.
"And that is because New York has not fiddled about with how they collect crime statistics in the way the UK has."
And it is on this point that he is half right. Few people question the crime figures in New York because they can see the evidence for themselves. Residents accept their city is safer than it was because they see the police doing their job of preventing crime and disorder - not just trying to detect crime and completely ignoring disorder as our police do - and can see the evidence with their own eyes.
Once again - as all things relating to the police do - this comes back to the principles laid down by Peel. This time it is principle number 9.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
New York has an absence of crime and disorder and that is why people believe the figures. London does not which is why Londoners do not. When Sir Ian Blair talks about belief in crime figures he is making the fundamental mistake which Peel warned that the police should not do. He is trying to use the crime figures as visible evidence of police action in tackling crime.
Sir Ian Blair shares a title with Sir Robert Peel - but that is about all they do have in common. What a shame he doesn't share Peel's vision or his ability to lay down in clear, concise terms what the police are about.
If Blair really wants to win back public confidence he should go back to Peel's nine principles and study and understand them. You don't need a degree in English language to read and understand this .....
"Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime." Sir Robert Peel
Simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)