Friday, 13 November 2015

PC Plod BA? To a point, Lord Copper

What will we require the police to do in the future? Well, although police bosses would have you believe that the police are all highly qualified anti-terrorist specialists who can spot a stolen Modigliani at twenty paces, the reality of the greatest part of policing is quite different. I'd guess 95% of all police activity is calls to disturbances or dealing with minor, non-indictable offences such as vehicle offences, petty theft and shoplifting, alcohol and drugs offences, minor criminal damage and so on. And I think 9.5 of every 10 hours of police duty time spent on such things is not an unreasonable estimate.  

I estimate the other 5% of police activity - equivalent say to 1,650 full time officers in London - is anti-terrorism and other specialist squads (art, antiques, serious and organised crime) etc. Cyber and online crime and fraud is becoming increasingly important - so say this side of policing will need to expand to 10% of plod time. 

You don't have to be a personnel officer (sorry, Human Resources Specialist) to work out that we really need two types of plod; on the one hand beefy, unexcitable, grounded plods who can cuff a drunk or disperse a wall of yardies, and on the other slim-fingered geeks who can touch-type and write Android apps. The first type need to be able to read and write, preferably in cursive script, and be happy to walk sixteen miles a day. The second are graduate types.  

We can get there by slowly turning PCSOs into Type 1 plods - giving them powers of arrest, and including them in 'police constable in uniform' legislation. For Type 2 plods, evidence of graduate-calibre ability should be required. Type 2s will obviously earn more, and be in the minority - so expect last ditch resistance from the Fed. 

This will also allow Type 1 plods to be increasingly responsible to local Watch Committees for management and deployment whilst the Home Office ratchets up its empire of Type 2s. 

Not tomorrow but say by 2015, 2025, I think thing should start to pan out.


English Pensioner said...

Even more to the point, do you need police for many jobs?
My daughter worked on the civil staff of a major police force and earned less than a PC. She was offered redundancy as part of the "cuts" and took it. Her post is now filled by a PC, who according to her contacts is doing the job less well as he has no interest in administration.
Do you need police for investigating all the cyber crime, sitting at computers all day long? Or even ploughing through paperwork of past crimes as they are with some re-investigations of past crimes.
Use police for jobs where they have to meet the public, use civil staff for all the backroom work.

Brightside Bob said...

Not sure what to make of your last sentence Radders...
Were you in a hurry?!

Raedwald said...

Damn I meant 2025 .....

Anonymous said...

We have geeks policing, they're called MI5.

Coppers are there to uphold the law - on the streets and nothing more, it's ACPO that needs culling.

G. Tingey said...

This is actually a revival of Lord Trenchard's proposed reforms of the police from the 1920's - which was scuppered by the "canteen culture" of the day.

Anonymous said...

In my youth a police officer was a civilian in uniform. His or her authority came from a consenting public who, in turn, would assist the Force in their endeavors to 'keep the peace':

The Nine Principles of Policing (1829)

1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that 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 on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

The police is now a 'service'; to politicians mostly, ideology is catered for within more senior ranks by attendence to a short course featuring neurolinguistic programming. A common purpose is thus contructed to ensure the 'service' given to the public is a modern 'control' based one, rather than the old fashioned 'consent' based model. Policing for a 'society in flux' is very challenging and citizens demonstrating non-conformance are to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. A list of non-conforming acts, thoughts and utterances are kept under lock and key at the Home Office.

That is all.


Anonymous said...

@Steve 1541


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said @ 17:18




Anonymous said...

I am Currently viewing the TV pictures and reports of the latest Paris attacks.

It is a shocking sequence of events and the slaughter is heinous as it is widespread and deadly in number.

Intimidation and terror is what the seek to sow and because we have become so soft, the implications for a concerted episode of bloody attacks is barely comprehendable.

The odds are, something similar will happen over here, most likely in London but surely people must be more fearful about a series of attacks on much softer targets up in the 'sticks'.

What I want to know, OK yes - the authorities have probably planned for some sort of London terrorist atrocity. I've read about SAS/SBS units on standby and in 24/7 preparedness, again though, are there sufficient units and can they be brought quickly into action travelling to the likes of; Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol or, Glasgow and Edinburgh?
I don't give a fig for the (s)police(/s) 'social services' armed units. Ultimately, if it happens in the provinces - I deem that, the police armed response units will be abject and less than useless for the type of determined multiple style attacks prosecuted in Bombay and Kenya. These guys will be at it and don't care much about death, in fact they wish it upon themselves.

It will require the Army and Army special forces - but a timely response is of the essence.

Frankly speaking: I don't think our [UK] police are up to it.

Cascadian said...

I ask you all to read Steve's response closely, then determine where it was thought necessary (in 1829 a much more violent period than today) to DISARM members of the public, and conversely to ARM the plodding plod.

Taking note of plod's actions in Tottenham a couple of years ago and the horrific scenes from Paris today, are you really confident that sub-contracting your families safety to plod is a good idea?

In the last 24 hours it has been notable that the USA has done what yUK could not-apparently killed Jihad John, then again this time there were no US citizens to protect the French from themselves such as there was in the train attack recently, result 158 dead. Perhaps, just perhaps you could learn something from the USA. But I doubt it, you are too comfortable in the warm glow of your mockney appopriation of them as septics.

Raedwald said...

cascadian - you're so far up your own arse with love for the septics and hatred of all things British that you miss the obvious; it's not guns that kill, it's Americans. Swiss, Austrians and others have far higher gun ownership than the US but only the septics use theirs to slaughter scores and hundreds of each other in schools, colleges, cinemas etc. mass shootings.

What's just happened in Paris could easily happen in Boston, or Chicago, or Houston - except the shooters won't be Islamists but americans.

Cascadian said...

Once again Raedwald you miss the point. Brits talk a good game they are just not able to execute the game, when euro-weenies require action it falls to the USA (OR THE COMMONWEALTH) TO PROVIDE IT. No guns were necessary on the train, nice try at changing the subject though to cover your embarassment.

Thank you for confirming my statement-"you are too comfortable in the warm glow of your mockney appropriation of them as septics.

Keep on swallowing the kool-aid put out by your plod-masters regarding guns, DAESH and ISIS are not as easily persuaded it would appear. Good luck with your pepper spray in a gunfight.