Police Reform: More Rhetoric under the guise of Power to the People?

Rt.Hon. Theresa May MP

Yesterday, Theresa May MP , the Home Secretary, delivered her latest sermon from the Home Office pulpit. Her speech was billed as a “coherent ideological vision for the service in England and Wales” but, is that vision blurred by the impact of an empty public purse?

She told her audience that police reforms weren’t just about money-saving and were designed to “equip the police to face the future.” The Home Office website says; “The government’s radical programme will leave us with a police force that is answerable to the public and transformed in its ability to fight crime.”

Whether or not all the claims come to fruition remains to be seen, I have to admit I’m doubtful. But more importantly, it’s also arguable whether or not the public will actually reap the promised benefits in the long run, I for one am still to be convinced.

When people talk about public service reform it’s often through the prism of cuts. With the deficit we have, that’s understandable, but it’s just not what our police reforms are about..(Theresa May MP)

It was good to hear Ms May actually acknowledge the important role that policing holds in our society at the beginning of her speech…

The police do one of the most important jobs in this country. They do their work with great courage, great skill and great commitment. In fact, I believe Britain has the finest police officers in the world. But we can help them do their job even more effectively…(Theresa May MP)

But don’t forget, she (and many of her political cohorts), often espouse a sweetener of hollow admiration, prior to getting into the meat of party political diatribe. Being adept at saying one thing to the face of policing (and the public), is often swiftly followed by stabbing them in the back before all the hot air has even cooled, it’s a prerequisite skill of politicians!

It’s undeniable that the role, task and perception of British policing has changed immensely since Sir Robert Peel’s conception indeed, I witnessed massive change during my thirty year career, only a small part in the bigger picture however; many say (and I agree) how can you plan and implement ‘reform’ when you don’t really know what it is you are trying to improve? A question that Mark Easton of the BBC is trying to address (see below).

In March 2011, Paul McKeever, the chair of the Police Federation for England and Wales, said: “It is extraordinary that the Home Office and Government have actually followed a policy for the last few months of reforming the police service through cuts by saying they will protect the front line when they, nor anyone else, can say what that is.” A year on and little has changed, there are still many big questions around the remit, roles and responsibilities of 21st century policing.

In addition, what the public want/expect from policing despite being mostly undefined, is wholly dependent upon the diversity of differing communities and the individuals that live within them. Everything from counter-terrorism and gang ‘warfare’ in the cities, through to alcohol related incidents and anti-social behaviour in the towns and suburbs, are all within the policing remit. As are the needs of the rural community suffering from burglary, livestock and fuel theft.

Try explaining to village community groups there are insufficient police resources to protect them and their property. The reduction in funds (and police numbers) mean understanding priorities; drunks fighting and smashing windows in the town centre two or three nights per week are (arguably), more important than the possibility of Ol’ Farmer Giles getting his tractor nicked.

Many parts of policing, with differing levels of priority for politicians, the public and the police are already in decline, and have been for years. 

The speech, and comment on its content, was admirably covered during the day by experts, critics and some supporters, both in the mainstream and social media forums. If there is one thing to be said for the power of the internet and modern communications; critical political matters are far more ‘in your face’ these days. Great for public engagement, not so great for politicians with a desire to try to stuff things under the door at the eleventh hour, and then say we were all consulted, I suspect.

Reading the piece written by Bernard Rix, a well-known and respected policing and public sector management consultant, entitled – Policing: “Power of the Public” – I’m mostly in agreement with many of his observations. He outlined how he believes the ‘most important’ content of the speech was the part relating to “empowering the public.”

Although I obviously find that interesting and an important issue, now I’m a retired police officer, I’m not sure I could confidently give it the highest priority, if I was still serving and being so severely financially shafted by our government?

…it does not mean that we’re happy with the outcome. Whichever way you dress it up, this will mean serious financial hardship for police officers…(Paul McKeever)

By the end of the day many, who actually have an interest in the issues, had digested the speech and offered up their own comments on the subject. But, as usual, with any political hot potato there was polarity of opinion. What too many often fail to understand is the plight of those who provide us with policing services.

They are not faceless or insignificant and generally, take pride in working hard to deliver the best possible service they can, often to their own and their family’s detriment. To add insult to injury, they’re now being financially disadvantaged as well. Writing his Chairman’s Blog on the subject, Clive Chamberlain of the Dorset Police Federation wrote…

All this means that police officers face a cut in take home pay of between 20 and 30 per cent over the next three years – more than any other group of public sector workers. Add to this the 20% cuts to the funding of the police service and loss of at least 16,000 warranted officers posts and policing is in for a challenging time. I fear the long-term losers will be our communities…(Clive Chamberlain)

Unfortunately I was unable to follow the issue ‘live’ all day and in addition, I also missed the new BBC Radio 4 series to be hosted by the BBC Home Affairs editor Mark Easton, due to work. In the program he intends to explore (and perhaps answer) the important question; “What are the police for?” He preempted the show with an excellent blog posting (see here) which set the scene about the conflicting priorities involved in policing today. Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t as simple a process as many would believe.

That is a much broader description of the police’s role than cutting crime “no more and no less”. Indeed, it might be argued, Theresa May wants them to do it all – from kids tagging a lamp-post to organised criminal gangs…(Mark Easton)

So what do you think the role of the police should be? Mark’s series What Are The Police For, which started on BBC Radio 4 last night, may answer some of the questions but I guess I will have to catch up via the iPlayer!

To borrow a phrase used in recent Home Office police recruitment campaigns; Policing – Could You? There is however one thing for sure… Sir Robert Peel is turning uncomfortably in his grave!

Related articles

• Theresa May outlines plans to deal with anti-social behaviour (independent.co.uk)
• Plan to curb anti-social conduct (bbc.co.uk)
• Police pay deal: Theresa May accepts £150m-a-year compromise(guardian.co.uk)
   

The Search to Stop Political Policing

Image via Wikipedia

Many people like to think that politics have no place in policing, I include myself in that grouping. Despite all the rhetoric from ‘interested’ parties on all sides of the process, politics have always been there and, to a certain extent, always will be…

Police direction and management born out of political direction or ideals, be they of party or personal origin, will always have a profoundly negative impact police impartiality and for some time yet. However, since the latest Government proposals for Police & Crime Commissioners, perhaps these negative impacts are set to get even worse?

Despite all the lauded but arguable advantages of PCCs such as; greater control over accountability, more community engagement and even greater neighbourhood orientated direction, there are still many people who believe; the provision of PCCs will actually result in greater politicisation of the police.

PCC’s can’t influence operational police activity – which is why the whole concept is a flawed load of old Tory spin in the first place. (@InspGadgetBlogs)

At the end of last year Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England & Wales (PFEW) said that PCCs, although intended to develop a direct relationship between the public and police, “could actually threaten the open and transparent nature of police governance” – and that’s before we even consider the negative impact upon the fundamental foundation of British policing, the impartial office of constable.

The Office of Constable (taken under Oath) bestows upon an ordinary citizen an extraordinary range of powers. The impartial execution of these powers, free from political interference, is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system and the non-negotiable key to maintaining any civilised democracy.We change this at our peril… (Clive Chamberlain, Dorset Police Federation)

The first stages of the national PCC role out began in London this week. But as the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in London began its task, of setting strategy and budgets for Scotland Yard, questions were once again being raised.

It’s interesting that Blair Gibbs of Policy Exchange, a person reputed to be ”close to ministerial thinking”, has also alluded to some the negative issues in a recent article in The Guardian (see here). Although Gibbs may be popular with the politicians, he’s almost as unpopular with many policing practitioners however, Gibbs does accept that “policing priorities may well change according to the political views of the elected politician.”

So a Liberal Democrat in the south-west elected on a civil liberties platform may insist on less use of CCTV, while a Labour politician in north-west England may demand more…(Blair Gibbs)

In my opinion; it’s wrong for standards of policing to be set differently in differing areas based upon political priority. Probably for that reason alone I would also suggest; in many respects the jury is still out on the outcomes and perceived values of PCCs. I would also argue they aren’t the only political impacts on policing at this time.

Several police powers, which are put in place as a result of legislation born out of political debate and reasoning. But these powers are also subject to further change as a result of the same process. A legislative function that far too often, appears to be driven by our ever powerful media influence.  In many respects the support or backlash of public opinion drives political aspirations and the desire of politicians to maintain high levels of public popularity and support.

One the greatest hot potatoes of police powers, continually thrown back and forth between sociopolitical experts and activists are the somewhat controversial Stop & Search laws. They may be constantly and liberally berated by many in human rights circles however, just as many policing practitioners would also argue that; these powers are a valid and vital tool in the police officer’s crime fighting utility belt.

How to loose friends and alienate people: The fact remains that if you have nothing illegal on you, and you are not engaged in illegal activity, you shouldn’t worry about being searched. You have the option to make a 6 minute process into 30 minutes of grief if you want to, by shouting the odds, getting your friends to intervene, treating the police like fools and being obstructive…(Read more)

The problems arise when such powers are used randomly and/or indiscriminately, as the media keep pointing out (see here).

Analysis shows that black people are now 30 times more likely to be stopped by the police than white people…(The Guardian)

But, as with any police power, the problem is often not the legislation itself rather, the way in which it is utilised and that is dependent upon the individual and his/her standard of training. When using any power police should always have regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the PACE codes of practice. Because of mostly media fulled public angst, the Home Office have recently changed the requirements for how the police record stop and search (read more). Those changes, purportedly aimed at reducing bureaucracy, are actually changes for mostly political reasons.

The political thought process and pressures, born out of reported causation factors for the London Riots etc are also the reasons why; the Metropolitan Police has decided to - ”dramatically reduce the number of random searches on members of the public.” These operational changes are being made in an effort to “improve relations between officers and the black and ethnic minority communities” (see here). That said, the ‘problems’ with the application of stop & search may never have arisen in the first place, if not for politically motivated and driven ‘targets’ in policing!

Although often rancid and/or caustically delivered, many of the commentators to the Inspector Gadget Blog post point this factor out most eloquently. For many years many, mostly younger in service, officers have been living in constant fear of performance retribution from their bean counting management. Their almost sole daily task has been the chase to achieve, and hopefully surpass, performance targets and quotas. Ones which are often based wholly upon manipulated and suspect statistical crime figures. Data that is recorded for and in line with political pressures of public opinion.

Irrespective of the human rights and diversity issues involved here, most of which are politically biased in any case, you will never totally remove politics from policing. At least not whilst statistical data continues to form the sole basis of police direction. And all this before you even start to consider another important factor; the police (supposedly) reflect and represent the society from which they are recruited.

Can we really remove politics from policing once and for all? I’m not holding my breath!

Related articles

• Police stop and search orders slashed (independent.co.uk)
• We need transparency in stop and search | Observer editorial (guardian.co.uk)
• Comment is free readers on … stop-and-search | The people’s panel (guardian.co.uk)
• Is stop and search racist? (mirror.co.uk)
• Mayor gains powers over policing (bbc.co.uk)
• Metropolitan police to scale back stop and search operation (guardian.co.uk)