Belgium shows the world how it's done

ST4 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30848946

This is the power of good intelligence. Good job.
Click to expand...


That's what I like too see......a good swift operation and in the words of the Belgian official....."We took the decision to neutralise the threat before the threat neutralized innocent people."

Take note Westminster........no matter who poses the threat as soon as intelligence is received and deemed to be a threat......the forces should move in and "neutralise"..........
 
Take note Westminster........no matter who poses the threat as soon as intelligence is received and deemed to be a threat......the forces should move in and "neutralise"..........
Click to expand...

Please, keep up...Lady May of Lala land wouldn't want that, she prefers Police to be killed in the attempt. It's an easy and cheap way of reducing Police numbers, because we don't need them.
 
Will they be going to Paris? Another hostage situation in place.

I do hope so
 
archangel said:
That's what I like too see......a good swift operation and in the words of the Belgian official....."We took the decision to neutralise the threat before the threat neutralized innocent people."

Take note Westminster........no matter who poses the threat as soon as intelligence is received and deemed to be a threat......the forces should move in and "neutralise"..........
Click to expand...

Too damned right (y)
 
ST4 said:
Our intelligence agencies are normally pretty clued up, I'd hope if any of these nutters were planning this they'd get stopped...like this.
Click to expand...

But there'd have to be a health and safety review and risk assessment first.
 
Our intelligence agencies are normally pretty clued up, I'd hope if any of these nutters were planning this they'd get stopped...like this.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, but HMG sadly isn't.

Lets hope they do get stopped because our illustrious senior Police Officers have today covered themselves ion glory. Telling everyone how much they care about the troops on the ground, and were considering their safety. Considering, but not doing anything though.
So, single crewing remains, not because there's any advantage to it, but simply because with HMG's cuts, you can't make it work if you have double crewing. Irrespective of it giving officers at least a bit of a chance if they come under attack. Officer safety is paramount.......Unless it costs money or shows Lady May of Lala land and her mate Tom Winsor as being third class buffoons.
 
Bernie174 said:
Yes they are, but HMG sadly isn't.

Lets hope they do get stopped because our illustrious senior Police Officers have today covered themselves ion glory. Telling everyone how much they care about the troops on the ground, and were considering their safety. Considering, but not doing anything though.
So, single crewing remains, not because there's any advantage to it, but simply because with HMG's cuts, you can't make it work if you have double crewing. Irrespective of it giving officers at least a bit of a chance if they come under attack. Officer safety is paramount.......Unless it costs money or shows Lady May of Lala land and her mate Tom Winsor as being third class buffoons.
Click to expand...

It will get worse when the Direct Entry scheme starts producing police superintendents after only 18 months. Then when these rookies get into a position where they appoint others it will further deteriorate.

When appointed, one of their tasks will be:-
"put the force's strategic business plan into action"

It used to be a police force, then a police service. Now it is a business !!
 
Very true. I am intrigued to see how one of these plastic Supers gets on with trying to police a riot, with no experience and very little training.
On the plus side, I doubt many of them will last very long, I hope! And yep, if they ever get to the point where they are appointing in their own image, policing is in deep poo.
For a long time the the 'Managers' in police forces (they seems to have abandoned leaders, mind you most haven't been capable of that for well over 30 years), have wanted to make it a service, and take Policing away from what it was set up for, ie preventing crime. Now it's become a second social services, and look how well thats working out.
Since long before I joined the job, whenever 2 or more Met Officers spoke, at some point early in the conversation one would mutter the words, "The Job's f&&&ed". We thought it was then, it certainly is now.
 
Serious question @Bernie174 and apologies if you have answered this before elsewhere, but apart from the obvious 'more money', from the point of view of officers on the ground, how would things be improved, I mean what needs to happen? How can both the police [and intelligence officers where that is applicable, such as terrorism] and policing improve from the viewpoint of having been one? I mean its easy for us to all sit here and say what is wrong with the police and what WE would do, but so often I have seen posts from you and others that are basically saying 'yes, but that isn't how it works in reality, we can/can't do this, are/aren't allowed to do that', stuff that much of the public wouldn't know about. So, genuine question, if the 'managers' had any nous and the politicians untied the purse strings, what are the ways forward both general policing and specifically regarding the terrorism threat? Is there a way forward?
 
Bernie174 said:
In terms of terrorism or policing in general?
Click to expand...

Sorry, was out all day yesterday, but meant both, specifically the polices part in dealing with terrorism, but also following your last sentence "Since long before I joined the job, whenever 2 or more Met Officers spoke, at some point early in the conversation one would mutter the words, "The Job's f&&&ed". We thought it was then, it certainly is now." policing in general. I know we can all sit here and bitch and moan how crap the police are, but few of us are in a position to fully understand the internal issues and ergo how they can be resolved. Just curious really, hearing the other side of the story if you like. Oh and yes, I realise the answer might be more of an essay than a post, so feel free to edit as you see fit ;)
 
We also must not loose sight that reporting of such events, with whatever motivation behind it, is very different between Belgium and the UK. Many plots are thwarted in the UK, an enormous amount of alerts are generated and acted upon be it intelligence be it intervention.

Not trying to disrespect Bernie but he has been out of it for a while, and further more is no longer constraint by what he can post and say about such things. Most of those who are close to what is happening today, and could provide a true insight of the workings couldn't be posting such insights on a public forum.

As such we should be careful drawing any conclusions in comparison with how it is perceived that other countries operate or what insights someone could provide from a long time ago from a regional force.

As I say this is not to out Bernie down, and if he is genuine he would know it himself better than most. There are many agencies at work these days and it does require a different approach to policing. Regardless of what opinions there are towards the Home Secretary.
 
dejongj said:
We also must not loose sight that reporting of such events, with whatever motivation behind it, is very different between Belgium and the UK. Many plots are thwarted in the UK, an enormous amount of alerts are generated and acted upon be it intelligence be it intervention.

Not trying to disrespect Bernie but he has been out of it for a while, and further more is no longer constraint by what he can post and say about such things. Most of those who are close to what is happening today, and could provide a true insight of the workings couldn't be posting such insights on a public forum.

As such we should be careful drawing any conclusions in comparison with how it is perceived that other countries operate or what insights someone could provide from a long time ago from a regional force.

As I say this is not to out Bernie down, and if he is genuine he would know it himself better than most. There are many agencies at work these days and it does require a different approach to policing. Regardless of what opinions there are towards the Home Secretary.
Click to expand...

Specifically about reporting, it is unlikely the Belgium raid would have even been reported here if it hadn't ended in shootings, and even with them, would have made far smaller headlines than it did had it not been for events in Paris the week before. Such raids here happen regularly, and often only make local news, or a passing headline in the main news at best.

Oh and asking Bernie specifically because he is out of it, and I assume in, shall we say 'easier' position to voice an opinion than a currently serving officer might be ;)
 
Fully agree about the reporting in Belgium.
 
First of these seems oh so simple and obvious, yet has been lost in Politics, what are Police for?

The original answers are in the definition of the word Police, which is the arrangement made in all civilised countries to ensure the inhabitance keep the peace and obey the law.

So it’s clear from that (which any ex or current Met Officers will recognise!) what Police are for. Sir Richard Mayne went a bit further than that in 1829 when he defined what Police should do.

"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained."

Does that all hold true today? No. Currently we have Police Officers playing at social workers. Being sent to ill or injured people because an ambulance isn’t available. Looking after the mentally ill at police stations because the NHS wont take them. Doing welfare visits to people who might commit suicide. None of these things are or should be the responsibility of Police. So why are they doing it?

The Police Federation has long asked for a Royal Commission on Policing in which they want an answer to the question what are Police there for today resolved. Mrs May of Lala land has consistently rejected that call.

So that’s the first thing that could be done. Yes, it takes time, but properly done, not by a “there’s the answer now go and invent the evidence to support it” lawyer, Tom Winsor, but by a properly independent panel of experts it would at least inform expectations.

Then there’s leadership, or rather lack of it. Originally, Senior Police Officers were promoted from the bottom, PC’s based on ability. You therefore had a very experienced leadership team. Then someone thought it would be a good idea to attract graduates by offering them accelerated promotion. Would be fine if that was kept to a few and those who knew what they were doing could keep the inexperienced in check. But that didn’t happen, and now the senior ranks of policing are full of very inexperienced officers who are promoting in their own image and who are risk adverse.

So the leadership is poor, very very poor. The latest fad of direct entry Inspectors and Superintendents is only going to grow, and make matters worse.

Mrs May forgets that there’s almost nothing new in Policing, and most things have been tried before. Lord Trenchard when he was commissioner of the Met introduced direct entry ‘Officers’ at Sub Inspector Level. It failed. The lessons of history have not been learned.

Now, Senior Police Officers will reject their lack of leadership and do exactly what Government say, so you have 2 immovable obstructions to that problem being overcome, so I really have no idea how you could resolve it. Stopping accelerated promotion perhaps, but there’s no will in the right places to do that.

Then there’s the prickly problem of complaints. In 19 years I had something like 25 complaints against me. 1 may have had a little bit of justification. The rest were utter rubbish. Most of the complaints against other officers I knew were the same. Now that’s not to say that the complainant didn’t feel aggrieved, but mostly it was misdirected at me, or dissatisfaction that it was them nicked or reported for process.

Dissatisfaction is an unfortunate by product of policing. No one ever likes being done for example for speeding. Exaggeration by the aggrieved doesn’t help matters, how many times have we seen “I got done for speeding, I was doing 31”. No you weren’t! You might think you were but you wouldn’t be issued with a ticket for that.

The internet hasn’t helped matters on that, we see on this site all the time people without any knowledge acting as Judge and Jury. Or worse still, second guessing Jury’s who have acquitted Police Officers, assuming that a quick look at a video is all the evidence they need.

Of course complaints should be addressed, but at the moment the IPCC who investigate serious complaints are too biased towards the complainant. So much so, that the provisions and protections in law on treatment of suspects do not equally apply to police officers. And as for discipline hearings? March in the guilty [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] should be the opening words.

Why does this make any difference to Policing? Well, it’s linked with what I said about Senior Police Officers, now the prime object is for a police officer to cover his own back. Why should they take a shortcut round something that doesn’t work? It leads to unemployment. Would you risk your job?

Again, how do you change that? Well, body cams will all but make the PSD/IPCC Industry unemployed. Secondly, a shift in emphasis to that adopted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch of the CAA would help matters, finding out why something happened, and if necessary correcting that, rather than it’s gone wrong, let’s find a Police officer to hang.

There will always be cases like Harwood, where a criminal investigation needs to be held. But opinion should be ignored in that, it’s evidence that matters and should matter. His trial was nothing more than a ‘political’ event by the IPCC/CPS. It should never have happened, well, not for manslaughter. The only evidence there was common assault, but the IPCC/CPS screwed up.

While we are at it, instead of the current attitude of “He must be guilty, but we can’t prove it, so we’ll get rid of the protections of suspects for Police and then we might be able to hang them” , the same protections as apply to everyone else should and must apply to police. If you can’t prove it, tough.

Better communication of things would also be an improvement. Hillsbough for example. There’s much hue and cry over the statements issue, but no one has said what’s obvious to me. 1. These statements were for a civil action, not criminal, and thus are constructed differently. In any Civil case where you make a statement a solicitor will often send it back for changes. And secondly, Criminal Justice Act statements then were devoid of emotion, feelings and opinions, just what you saw or heard or physically felt. That puts a slightly different light on some aspects of that incident.

Moving on, deployment. There are a lot more Police now than when I joined. Yet I cannot recall seeing a PC walking the streets for years. I tend to notice them, perhaps more than the public at large, so if I ain’t seeing them then there aren’t many.

The trend when I was in the Police was for the back end to wag the front. More and more people where needed to run the back, or worse to serve their needs, the emphasis moved away from Police being outside the nick.

So take reporting a crime. It used to be an A3 sheet, where you filled in name & address of victim, a fair number of details of what happened, and wrote on the back of the sheet what you did investigation wise. If it was a no hope job, then writing it up and classifying it took about 10 minutes. If it was going to be investigated further, then only 5.

Towards the end of my career reporting it on a computer took about 30 minutes. Not because there was anything important added, simply to fill in the crap for someone in a back office.

So on an average day, I might have reported 6 crimes. So less than 45 minutes of writing. Most of which I could do as I was at the scene doing the initial investigation. Now….3 hours, none of which can be done at scene.

I got stopped taking photos at an airport a couple of years ago. After waiting 20 minutes I was presented with a book of reasons excuses and justification for being stopped. I already knew everything it said, the stop was fully justified! When we did it, the form was the size of a fag packet. More back covering and collecting rubbish to justify some back office whallah.

So that’s the back ground to some of what’s wrong. It’s a combination of Police doing things they shouldn’t, being poorly led. Constant back covering to keep your job, erosion of pay and conditions. And that’s just skimming the surface.


Political correctness. It is stifling policing. Yes, you’ve had your car broken into, why should person a be more important in that than person B, based on colour or ethnic origin, or sex or religion? It’s a crime it should be investigated no matter who the victim is. The MacPhearson report was full of inconsistent assumptions; it’s high time it was binned.

So how do you fix it?

I’ve covered a few suggestions, but they are as brief as the skim through the causes. It’s a complex muddle that has grown up from Political interference and bad management decisions.

The PBI, the PC when/if he ever gets out on the streets does what he can to make it work. Yes, of course they screw up every so often. Anyone would given what they have to work with, but in the same way as we did when I did it, we did our best.

So yes, people need to decide what they want Police to do. Not to add on things that have nothing to do with Policing. Leadership needs to be implemented, and this idea of ‘management’ needs to stop. Political correctness needs binning Policing should be blind to the victims colour race, creed or sex. Officers should be supported not hounded for any minor error in process, discretion needs to return. Targets and milestones need to go.The culture of "Cover your back" be got rid of, by reform of the complains system. An honest mistake should be recognised as such and not lead to sacking to make it look like complaints are being dealt with seriously.

Until you fix the problems in the background Policing will steadily get worse. The result will be less effective crime fighting and worse at the moment, less effective prevention of terrorism.
 
Oh and asking Bernie specifically because he is out of it, and I assume in, shall we say 'easier' position to voice an opinion than a currently serving officer might be
Click to expand...

It's certainly true that you will be hard pushed to find police officers willing to risk their jobs and tell the truth in public rather than the official line nowadays. But I know enough serving officers still, and I am not under the same threats they are.

However, Inspector Gadget still tweets, as are a few of the other officer Blogs. I really do recommend people read them!
 
i did here of a lady in liverpool that dialled 999 for the police ,the telephonist on the other end asked her who had recommended that she phone them and would she mind taking part in a survey about there helpfulness
 
the black fox said:
i did here of a lady in liverpool that dialled 999 for the police ,the telephonist on the other end asked her who had recommended that she phone them and would she mind taking part in a survey about there helpfulness
Click to expand...
I do hope that was a joke,
but I wouldn't be surprised, albeit saddened, to hear that it was actually true.
 
Bernie174 said:
It's certainly true that you will be hard pushed to find police officers willing to risk their jobs and tell the truth in public rather than the official line nowadays. But I know enough serving officers still, and I am not under the same threats they are.

However, Inspector Gadget still tweets, as are a few of the other officer Blogs. I really do recommend people read them!
Click to expand...

Can you point me towards the other blogs please, Bernie. I have found the Insp. Gadget one.
 
Re Bernie's post #19

Bernie, you clearly put a great deal of effort into that post and it is most interesting, thank you.

There is clearly a lot wrong with policing nowadays and responsibility for the overwhelming bulk of it must lie at the feet of goverment over the years. Indeed there is a lot wrong with many things in which government (of all persuasions) has tampered. I believe there is a serious fundamental weakness in how government operates in this country with the result that many essential organisations do no not function as they should. Policing, health and education immediately spring to mind.
In particular, as far as I know, the UK is the only European democracy where government ministers ar elected political appointments. Other countries have ministers that are "permanent" appointments (with the encumbents holding professional qualifications and experience relative to their field) that don't change with each election, and often several times in between. The UK has a system whereby few, if any, ministers have a detailed grasp of who and what they control. Furthermore they hop from ministry to ministry whenever the PM feels the need for a cabinet reshuffle. That makes no sense.
 
@Bernie174 thankyou for that answer and it certainly sheds some light on the problems from within. Fairly certain I have read the Inspector Gadget stuff, in book form, a couple of years ago as much of what you say sounds very familiar, it rattled a few memory cells. I think it's also fair to say that our 'blame' culture we currently live in hasn't helped the Police generally either, combined with the fact that a LOT is made in the press of any miscarriages of justices or errors, but a local police force doing some good will be lucky if it makes the local rag [as with so many things in life, bad news is round the world twice before good news has it's boots on]. So, I would perhaps add another change that is needed - some good PR and by that I mean from the ground upwards. I doubt any of us expect the 'perfect' police force, there will always be bad eggs, those that have joined for the power trip it gives them, the arse covering that seems essential in the modern job, etc. However, it strikes me that the police need far less paper work and far more of what our forces in Iraq referred to as the battle for hearts and minds - getting the public onside and supportive of their efforts so there is confidence in what they do and support for it. Much of that relates to what you mention about officers on the street, real officers, I'm afraid 'plastic plod' as they have become known, have sadly become a laughing stock due to their lack of any actual policing powers. That isn't to say we shouldn't have them, there just needs to be a shift towards real beat officers being visible and actually being an active part of the communities they serve.
 
Last edited:
I have enormous sympathy for, and I fully support, the work of front line police officers, most of whom do a first class job in difficult and increasingly dangerous circumstances.

These are the people who we (occasionally) see. These are the people who are expected to move into danger when the rest of us are moving away from it. These are the people who talk to us when we are a victim of crime or just about any other traumatic experience. A few bad ones give the rest a bad reputation, for example I still remember a very aggressive and unreasonable female police officer from over 20 years ago...

I think though that there is a real problem with the higher echelons. I have never been a police officer and my experience is limited to one case and one force, but from what I've heard, they are typical. It seems to me that the front line officers belong to a different type of police force - they see their role as protecting and helping the public, preventing crime and locking up criminals. Their bosses see their role as protecting the police force from comebacks, which I think means protecting themselves from comebacks. They ignore their own processes and procedures where it suits them, evidence that they don't like disappears, evidence that they do like magically appears, everything that gets written down is protected, but very little that could be embarrassing gets written down anyway.

There is very little money available for front line policing, but no shortage of it for the boys in charge - paper pushers have a chauffeur driven car available if they need to go out, but also have a top of the range car for their personal use. They are able to charge their personal expenses to work, they have staff, based not on their workload but on their rank. And, speaking of rank, it is far from unknown for a senior police officer to get a further promotion a month before retirement, which of course increases the pension - not that they have to struggle on a very high pension anyway, because many of them never actually leave, they just carry on, as civilians.

I disagree with Bernie re the complaints procedure. It is very clear that he feels personally aggrieved about it, but my experience is that it exists
1. To protect the most senior police officers
2. To pay lip service to having a complaints procedure.

I agree with YV about public relations - the police have a lot to shout about but they do it very badly, when they do it at all.
 
Garry

You can disagree all you like. I've spent a good part of my life in it, you had one dealing. You didn't like the out come, it wasn't what you think it should be. I think the outcome was right. That doesn't mean the complaints system wasn't followed, it clearly was, and what you think about number 2, does not prove number 1.
I am the last person to defend senior Police Officers, in fact I'd delight in hearing about more of their malfeasance, but on this occasion, there was none.

Yvonne

The Plastic Police were first suggested a very long time ago, by Clark when he was the Tory Home Sec. It was binned then for common sense reasons.
While I didn't agree with them, I have had a couple of dealings with them of late, and to be fair, for what they were doing, they were fine. The lack of Police powers isn't an issue, so long as they aren't being expected to be a substitute for real police. So, with Anti Social behaviour, where no one's going to get nicked for example, why waste a real PC?

Problem comes when they are used as an Aldi Band Aid for a broken leg. It doesn't work. But due to the cuts, they are left doing things they shouldn't. Although, some Police ish attendance is better than none.
 
Bernie174 said:
Garry

You can disagree all you like. I've spent a good part of my life in it, you had one dealing. You didn't like the out come, it wasn't what you think it should be. I think the outcome was right. That doesn't mean the complaints system wasn't followed, it clearly was, and what you think about number 2, does not prove number 1.
I am the last person to defend senior Police Officers, in fact I'd delight in hearing about more of their malfeasance, but on this occasion, there was none.
Click to expand...
You're right, I don't like their processes, which suit them down to the ground, but that isn't the issue.

That process did in fact produce damming written evidence against them, but it came from someone who was not a police officer and guess what - it got left out of their report, and not mentioned.

And that doesn't amount to malfeasance?

The process doesn't work because it is far from transparent.
The appeal to the IPCC doesn't work because the IPCC terms of reference only allows it to investigate the process, not to investigate the investigation so, once they have found out that the police followed their own procedure, nothing can be done - even in the face of overwhelming evidence that surfaces later.
 
I quite liked some of the protest posters on bus stops in london by Strike
anarchist-protest-posters-010.jpg

7356c715-1a1a-4446-a8fd-1a8f6e3475ec-620x372.jpeg


Now being shown at a gallery
http://www.flaxonptootch.com/
 
The fact a process isn't transparent doesn't mean it doesn't work.
So you're starting premise is flawed.
As for evidence from someone else? I'm sorry, is this one of your fabled, I know, but can't say who again?
If so, then it's worthless as evidence.

As I said, the right result was reached on the matter that your complaint was about.

I quite liked some of the protest posters on bus stops in london by Strike
Click to expand...

And the Booker prize for pointless amusing fiction goes to...............

(it's strange when someone peddles something untrue, about someone else being dishonest????)
 
Bernie174 said:
The fact a process isn't transparent doesn't mean it doesn't work.
So you're starting premise is flawed.
As for evidence from someone else? I'm sorry, is this one of your fabled, I know, but can't say who again?
If so, then it's worthless as evidence.

As I said, the right result was reached on the matter that your complaint was about.
Click to expand...
Tell you what Bernie, let me have your email address via PM and I will send you the evidence, on the condition that you treat it as totally confidential.
As that evidence has come from within the police, you'll be struggling not to believe it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top