I thought you told him?

Apparently the Comish was not kept in the loop.

I find it kind of hard to believe no one put a word in to the Commissioners office to let him know what they planned to do.Its not as if I am against thinking for yourself in this job. Lets face it any decision that requires some form of contentious action requires a number of Gold strategy meetings or a series of hastily convened community outreach workshops etc.....

If someone thought it a good idea to try and ensure the ones openly and regularly carrying guns on the areas where gun crime and its affects are rife are trained police officers seems to be a good one to me.

Apparently the great and the good don't feel this is right and would rather the streets are left to the gangs on the Estates.

And apparently the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) weren't consulted... so there you go. All proactive actions in relation to serious ongoing crime trends to be put on hold then.

Still the Commissioner may have been distracted. I am informed he has been actively out and about challenging anyone not patrolling singly and associated dress codes.

Still early days for 5 P's....but it would now appear someone forgot to Pass the armed Patrol decision on.

Again?

I have been away from the Metropolis for a week or so now,unfortunately this latest 'storming of Parliament' by Greenpeace catches my eye.

If I am honest I am not really driven by the thought of the safety of the incumbents of this hallowed House on the Thames,shuffling back after the 'Summer?'recess. However the latest incursion on what is apparently a secure site is an embarrassment for the Met.

A personal opinion is that we either do this properly ie 24/7, in your face type of stuff and no-one gets near or we just accept the fact that if someone really wants to they can get in/on the Parliament roof/Big Ben etc and publicise/unfurl whatever banner they want.

If we are going to accept that fact then lets just organise it properly. A list, say every other Wednesday and Friday with Health and Safety organising the walkways and banner attachments on the roof. A small fee to cover costs perhaps.

The problem is that, it would appear, at current arrangements, at some point those breaching that 'line' will not be an irritating but well intentioned member of the public with a cause, but someone with far worse intentions.

Damned for whatever..its the new Blue.

I think the articles in the Mail today are telling in that we as Police, whatever the failings of the entire criminal justice system, if it goes 'belly up ' it always seems to be portrayed as our fault.We just cant get it right.

We do get it right,week after week, but that doesn't make news.

The Rachel Nickell enquiry is,in one way,an example.
The job is apparently likely to be sued because we failed to deal with the paranoid schizophrenic 3 years earlier prior to his attack in 1992.Our man at the Yard Mr Yates states that 'more could and should have been done' Again some 16 years after the event these hindsight goggles are as sharp as ever.

Now this job was so long ago and I don't have access to all the details of what was and wasn't done at the time (and the Mail is as vague on detail) but whatever the officers did they clearly didn't have access to the team crystal ball during that period.

That sounds flippant and I don't intend it to,as a number of innocent people have either lost their lives or have been badly affected by this individuals actions.

But at that time 3 years prior to Rachel Nickel being murdered did the police have 'sufficient information' to arrest, interview, demand DNA from this individual? Was the 'information' in a form that could be used without identifying the informant? The venue was not clearly identified. Back in 1989 was there the forensic advances to assist with this? Was the victim,if identified, willing to pursue the allegation? At that time, what was his previous history?

If we had willing witnesses,victim, scene, good forensic( the sort of stuff CPS still demand today) and we STILL failed to act then we can throw ourselves on our sword.

I am not saying the shambles regarding the 'honey trap' and STAGG does us credit but it was done, based on research, with the best intention and with the approval of the CPS who,as ever, never seem to be subject to public vitriol when a case goes wrong.

The next article is regards the fatal shooting of Clare Nernal back in 2005. She was brutally shot, at short range, in Harvey Nicolls store by an ex boyfriend.The whole tone of this article is that it somehow remains the fault of the police.I recall at the time that the Courts were blamed for giving him Bail but that clearly doesn't suit this article

Background: The Harassment Act 1997 was designed to deal with Stalkers like this.

However it has become a catch all piece of legislation that everything from 'he looked at me the wrong way' to 'he held a knife at my throat and threatened to gut me' gets reported under this Act. Borough units are plagued by low level 'Harassment' a lot of which is usually dealt with by telling some people to grow up or get a life... suitably phrased naturally. However amongst the dross are cases that require more attention. Even amongst the other cases it can be hard, without omniscience, a degree in clinical psychology to get it right every time. In this case he was arrested and 'warned' He breached this and was arrested. The background MUST have been sufficient for police to recommend his remand in custody. That is OUR recommendation and not CPS at first hearing,for a spell in Belmarsh to result.That he is then given bail,returns home,returns,pleads guilty and then does this act of senseless violence CANNOT be blamed on police or OIC.

Again if we had that Team Crystal ball hooked up in the office things could be different. We don't and it wasn't.

We shovel a lot of...stuff... day in and out. Those that actually sign for and investigate are low in numbers compared to the volume that comes in. When the wheel comes off I would like other aspects of the system to be put under scrutiny. We always seem to be the default position for criticism.

I am not saying we are always right or correct but we are a damn sight better than we are portrayed.

The TV on the wall is reading your fate.

Its been a bit mad lately with work. I have been gadding about all over the place.

However I was back in a Central London nick on one of those 'hurry up and wait' type jobs and after gorging on fried food and tea I found myself stuck for something to read. I discovered a copy of one of the local freebie newspapers and was intrigued by the headlines 'Fast-track justice is virtually ridiculous...

Reading on.. it appears that a good chunk of the local solicitors are boycotting the 'virtual courts'. The reason being they are not happy to sit next to the 'accused' in a room whilst they are sentenced via video link as they fear for their personal safety if the dispensed justice causes their client to react violently....

ha ha ha ha ha ...yeah right!

I found a web page later with the link

I have spent hours and hours and hours over the years waiting for the Reps in assorted police stations to finish with their clients.They are more than happy to sit for hours with the less than er...'respectable citizen' alone in a room whilst they concoct..sorry that may be considered ill judged..whilst they discuss their clients options.The first thirty minutes are usually down to completing the legal aid forms any way!

I am not sure if the 'virtual court system' will ever really alleviate the backlog at Courts but I am sure the reasons for the local Solicitors to boycott it are not down to personal safety fears but more a realisation that a one visit 'all done and dusted in a session' scenario affects the repeat fees as it drags through the courts

Cynical?.. yeah damn straight.... but I think a fair spin on it!

Danger..minefield ahead.

A Parliamentary report headed by Kieth Vaz has concluded that police are still 'institutionally racist' This release coincides with the 10th anniversary of the Macpherson enquiry findings.
Basically it appears that despite the 'conclusions' made by Macpherson we are actually stopping and searching more black people than 1999!

This report was cranked out prior to the Honourable members taking the best part of a 3 month break so details are sketchy but my issues are this.

The article on the report does not clarify if the stops were justified or not. The fact that the numbers are skewed towards black people does not explain why the stops were made, under what circumstances,whether the individuals are known to police and form part of a local proactive campaign to disrupt certain crime trends.

If the Honourable members are suggesting that, based on the stats, police are actively targeting blacks and ignoring criminals or crimes committed by white/Asian/other then lets call for a full public enquiry to establish the true facts behind the figures.

No calls for that in the article.

Mr Vaz talks of the disproportionate imbalance of DNA of black people held on the database. If DNA is held on the database then it is because people have been arrested and brought into custody for offences.

If the Honourable members are suggesting that, based on the stats, that police are actively targeting black people and either ignoring criminals or crimes committed by white/Asian/other or even 'fitting up' said black people to skew the figures then lets call for a full public enquiry to establish the true facts behind the figures.

No calls for that in the article.

It was Paul Condon who,years ago, as Commissioner, stated that black youth were over represented in certain types of crime.The usual furore which followed was that he was actually stating that all black people are (or were potentially) criminals which was and IS utter nonsense.He was simply stating stats on certain crimes.

10 years after Macpherson and the police have undergone major internal reform. We have been educated,informed,re-aligned in our views and yet we are apparently still stopping and searching more black people than white/Asian /other.

I don't believe we are doing this because we are really unreformed unrepentant misfits of a bygone age. We are doing this because we are reacting to what we are dealing with,real time,on the streets. That the figures don't skew to some perceived acceptable norm is beyond our control.

This brief article on the report is about figures and their interpretation.What better soundbite than to give a dig at the police again on the 10th anniversary of the utterances of the sage Macpherson without clarifying detail.

Then again according to the Telegraph Mr Vaz is not so hot on figures anyway.

Talent,Tapping up and Team Met

Loads of stuff in the papers recently regarding remuneration for the very senior ranks in the job. Retention packages, security, even subsidised fees for the CC's kids.Probably not hard for this to come to light since the Trough on the Thames gave Her Majesties press a feeding frenzy with the Telegraphs drip feeding of revelation by revelation.

These extras apparently are about TALENT. Its Recruitment, its Retention and the ability to Renegotiate' should other 'offers' be made. If they had agents I am sure the three R's would be the basis for negotiation at the top table.

The MET appear to be up front in seeking out such possible stars.
This notion of Talent in the senior ranks is what drove me to write this post.
A recent internal Met post indicates we are actively requesting referrals for 'graduates' from staff.

So what is talent in a senior officer who aspires to that rank?

Talent sought by Police Authorities bears NOTHING in relation to what I consider to be the fundamentals of police work.

You do NOT get to be a 'High flyer' (Accelerated promotion scheme for Graduates ) by spending any length of time, in any unit,grinding out enquiries.

Anything (realistically past Inspector/Chief Inspector) in this job is a manager.Actual police work is secondary.Politics and figures are everything and it is driven top down. Common sense and discretion, the old bywords of day to day policing are gone

There are some who fight and try and maintain that old equilibrium. They do not progress.

We do NOT need any more bright young things with degrees in Anthropology and Politics from the University of Somewhere to be fast tracked and merely graze briefly on the lush green fields of criminality before finding themselves sitting in an office and deciding that for the next rank they will ignore that age old adage 'if it 'ain't broke don't fix it'.

We need bright young keen recruits willing to spend some serious time shoveling sh*t before they move on.

That doesn't sound good as a soundbite though.

The basic test for me is 'what if'

What if ?.... the senior officer and all his deputies and assistants decided en- masse to take a year Sabbatical. What would happen?

In regard to basic day to day policing............sod all. It would just go on as normal.

What if ?....Response,SNT,CID decided to take a years Sabbatical.What would happen.....Chaos and Anarchy.

I think the point I am trying to make is this. The higher up the slippery pole you are the less 'essential' value you become to the organisation which pays your wage.

Talent?................

Some Sundays...

I went into Central London on Sunday to display my gratitude to these men and women
It is probably the last time they will parade at this venue. It was a typically simple,understated occasion that the MET police throughout the year.Not a large crowd for a central London event but even the curious throngs of camera snapping tourists held their peace as the service progressed.

Simple low key policing and assisted by the diligent and resourceful St Johns tending to the hot,tired and weary.

As they marched back into the Whitehall side street from the service parade it was good to see all the veterans cheered and clapped by those who watched.
I think one of the biggest cheers was to Albert Rogers who was, gently, to the triumphant music of the assembled army band, assisted to the rendezvous by a parading police officer.

Some Sundays it is worthwhile getting your backside out of the house.