IT'S OFFICIAL! POLICE CHIEFS ARE TO BLAME FOR BUREAUCRACY IN THE SERVICE

Theresa May Home Secretary

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8502708/Theresa-May-blames-police-chiefs-for-red-tape-burden.html

The Home Secretary said a “great deal” of bureaucracy faced by officers on a daily basis is generated by their own force. She suggested that even when some national forms and targets have been scrapped to ease the burden, forces still required the information at a local level.

She said police leaders must now do more to cut paperwork as she announced a series of measures to reduce red tape. It includes handing more charging decisions to the police, allowing some offenders to be charged through the post and giving officers more discretion in how they prioritise calls. The moves should free up to 2.5 million police hours a year.

In a speech in London on Monday, Mrs May said: "I have made a clear commitment today that the Government is determined to get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy generated from the centre. But this commitment must be matched by police forces themselves. A great deal of the day-to-day bureaucracy that police officers encounter is actually generated by their own force".

"So I want police forces across the country to follow our lead. Every single senior police officer should be asking themselves what they personally are doing to rid their officers of red tape. If we've scrapped a form at national level, then there had better be a really good reason for keeping it at local level. If we've done away with a target nationally, then stop chasing it locally. If we've got rid of a national regulation, then don't bring in a local replacement."

The Home Secretary's speech is reprinted below.

The deal: one year on



Monday, 09 May 2011


This speech on police bureaucracy was delivered by Theresa May on 9 May 2011.

'Last year in my very first speech as Home Secretary, I offered the police a deal - more freedom to do your work; in exchange for greater accountability to local people. It is now one year since I made that pledge. Today, I want to update you on what we have done so far; and I want to talk about the next steps in fulfilling that deal.

Progress in Public Accountability


We have made good progress.


The legislation for Police and Crime Commissioners has passed through the House of Commons and will shortly enter committee stage in the House of Lords.

Police and Crime Commissioners will bring real public accountability to policing. Unlike invisible police authorities, your commissioner will be somebody you’ve heard of; somebody you’ve voted for; somebody you can hold to account; somebody you can vote out if they don’t help the police to cut crime. But they will in no way affect the operational independence of the police.

Commissioners will not manage police forces and they will not be permitted to interfere in the day-to-day work of police officers. A protocol setting out the relationship between Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables will make this clear – we will publish a draft of the protocol to inform discussion of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill during committee stage in the House of Lords.

Let me be clear - the duty and responsibility of managing a police force will fall squarely on the shoulders of the chief constable – as it always has done.  Indeed, we are giving chiefs more power to appoint their top teams. If they are going to be the ones held to account for their force’s performance, then they should have genuine responsibility for their force.

The new model of democratic accountability for the police will begin in May next year. But for neighbourhood police officers we’re making this public accountability happen right now. We are mandating forces to hold regular neighbourhood beat meetings. These meetings will give local people the chance to scrutinise the work of their local police. People will be able to raise their concerns: what are local officers doing about the drug dealing in the local park? What’s happening about the pub where all the trouble is? And the police will have to respond. Beat meetings will make the new sense of public accountability a day to day reality for people up and down the country. And they’ll make public accountability a day to day reality for tens of thousands of police officers as well.

To make this accountability work, we have already given the public access to the country’s first-ever nationwide street-level crime maps. Armed with this information, people will really be able to hold their officers to account for their performance. Since launching in January, the police.uk website has received over 410 million hits. That just shows the enormous appetite the public have for information about policing and crime in their local area. And it shows just how desperately keen people are to play their part in keeping their communities safe.

These reforms add up to a massive transfer of power from the government, to the people.They will be in charge, and every police officer – from chief constables, to the officer on the street – will have to answer to them. For a public service, in a democracy, that is exactly how it should be.

Progress in slashing bureaucracy

But giving power to the people is only half of the deal. This new, democratic accountability means we can do away with the bureaucratic accountability of the past. So we will free the police to do their job. And we’ve made progress here too.

I have said loud and clear that the days of the bureaucrats controlling and managing the police from Whitehall are over. The Home Office will no longer scrutinise and supervise police performance and come up endlessly with new schemes and initiatives. So I've responded to incidents like the Cumbria and Northumbria shootings, not with a gun crime summit, or some hasty new legislation, but by respecting the operational independence of the police.

And I've responded to the violence at protests in London, not by criticising the police or coming up with some new draconian anti-protest Bill, but by letting the police get on and do their job. Indeed, the police do an excellent job, as we saw again during the Royal Wedding. I’ve also put in place plans to end the ring-fenced funding which restricts the police’s flexibility. From 2013, when police and crime commissioners will set their first budgets, I will end the ring-fencing of all of the central policing grants that we have not already stopped, save only for counter-terrorism.

And I’ve scrapped the Policing Pledge and confidence target, the PSA targets, the key performance indicators and the Local Area Agreements. I want police officers chasing criminals, not chasing targets. So I’ve given the police just one single objective – to cut crime.

After years of bureaucratic control from Whitehall, which wrapped the police up in red tape and undermined their professional judgement, the message to the police is clear – this government trusts you to fight crime.
That’s why we have already restored police discretion over certain charging decisions, saving up to 50,000 police hours per year.

That’s why we’ve scrapped the national requirement for the stop and account form, and cut the reporting requirements for stop and search, saving up to an estimated 800,000 police hours per year.

And that’s why we’ve issued new health and safety guidance that supports officers who do the right thing – when police officers put themselves at risk to protect the public, they shouldn’t be worrying about breaching the rules.

We’ve also given a clear signal to our partners across the Criminal Justice System – and this message is getting through.

So Sir Denis’s own organisation - Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary – will now focus on light touch monitoring and inspection and on incentivising local accountability and transparency. They will reduce the burden of inspection on forces by acting as a single gateway.

We’ve worked with the Independent Police Complaints Commission to implement a radical new approach to police complaints.

This will encourage front line supervising officers to deal with most complaints quickly and informally themselves, rather than relying on lengthy bureaucratic procedures that so often fail to satisfy the public. Most of the time people want a simple apology – not a lengthy form to fill in.

And we’ve also started a programme with the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts to streamline the processes across the system that generate unnecessary paperwork and waste police time in the station and at court.

Commitment to go further

But this is just the start. I’m determined to go further and faster.

I want to get rid of even more of the grinding bureaucracy that wears officers down and stops them doing their important work. Dealing with a simple burglary can require 1000 process steps and 70 forms to be completed as a case goes through the Criminal Justice System. That can’t be right.

Today I can announce a raft of reforms that we estimate could save over 2.5 million police hours every year. That’s the equivalent of more than 1,200 police officer posts.

These reforms are a watershed moment in policing. They show that we really mean business in busting bureaucracy. First, we have restructured the police performance development review process. This move will not only save time, but will also improve police management. And it could save up to 1.5 million police hours per year.

This month we will launch an 'assumption of competence' model. This is based on the simple premise that most trained and experienced police officers and staff are competent and their line manager’s observation will therefore provide most of the management evidence needed.

This shorter and more straightforward PDR process will change a bureaucratic burden into a sharp and meaningful conversation about performance, development and skills.

If this is accepted by all forces we estimate it could cut the time spent on each officer or staff member’s PDR from 10 to 2 hours each year.

We’re also working with the police to streamline other aspects of their HR. For example, until January there were over 35,000 different role profiles – definitions of skills, standards and qualities – for officers and staff across the service. And the role profile for a constable alone could reach up to 70 pages.

The new Policing Professional Framework is drastically reducing the number of profiles and is also simplifying them so that now the role profile of a constable can fit on to one side of A4.

Second, risk management. We need to move away from the tick box, cover your back culture – where the response is rigidly prescribed according to the type of problem reported. And instead we need to adopt a more sensible way of managing risks to the public.

For example, more efficient call-handling, often by staff rather than police officers, and active assessment of risks could mean more effective grading of incidents.

This would see more officers dispatched to the genuine priority incidents; allowing less urgent matters to be resolved by phone, or by an officer attending at a later time. Of course, if something is urgent it should be treated as such, but we estimate that a more sophisticated approach to assessing and managing risk could save up to 860,000 hours of police time.

Third, we will champion a simplified crime recording process. As a starting point, this means challenging forces to simplify their own practices, but I don’t want to stop there. At my request, the National Statistician is currently reviewing crime statistics. I do not want to pre-empt her report, and indeed she is discussing her emerging findings with experts today, but I specifically want to look at reducing the number of crime categories and merging some similar crime types.

This would help officers when they come to fill out crime reports, saving them time and reducing the amount of data they have to collect for more minor crimes. We estimate that this could save up to 95,000 hours of police officer time each year.

I am clear that the public need to have transparent and trusted information on crime – and our crime maps have already helped with that – but we need to be smart about how we deliver it.

Fourth, Sara Thornton, the Chief Constable of my own local force Thames Valley, is leading work on behalf of ACPO to review the police service’s doctrine and guidance. This work, which will be completed by March 2012, is likely to reduce over 600 pieces of current guidance to an approved set of fewer than 100. This should lead to significant savings for officers as they will no longer have to read and learn all of this guidance.

But just as important, it will send a clear signal that the professional judgement of individual officers is valued and it is expected.  This is a great example of a service led contribution to cutting police paperwork.


But let me make clear, individual forces must not respond to this valuable work by re-inventing 43 versions of the national guidance that has been scrapped – we are not removing these burdens only for them to be reintroduced at local level.

Fifth, we will pilot going even further in restoring charging decisions to police officers, a step we are taking because of the Crown Prosecution Service’s views of the positive and effective ways in which the police have responded to the reforms I announced last year.

Rising to the challenge, the CPS and the police have worked together to ensure that officers are properly supported and victims are properly protected as we cut back bureaucracy. And across the country, instead of waiting around in custody suites, officers are already saving time because of the changes we have made.

So now, following discussions with the CPS and the police, we will go further. We will pilot doubling the number of charges transferred to police officers, giving them responsibility for nearly 80% of charging decisions, including shoplifting cases. This will save even more officer time, stopping them from having to ring up the Crown Prosecution Service to make the decision for them, or having to bail the offender to come back at a later date. This dramatic shift would further enhance officers’ discretion and once again demonstrates the trust we put in our police officers.

If the pilot is successful and is rolled out fully, it could save up to an estimated 40,000 more hours of police officer time.

We are also looking at introducing a range of measure to provide a new, simpler and potentially quicker way of bringing a defendant to court for a prosecution. This includes postal charging and requisitioning.

For appropriate police bail cases, this will allow officers to send a written charge by post, requiring the defendant to attend court on a specific date to answer the charge, rather than calling the suspect back to the police station for charging. This could save up to another 40,000 police officer hours annually.

Finally, if we’re serious about tackling police bureaucracy, that will also mean looking at some difficult and sensitive areas. Let me be clear - I will always put public safety first. But some of the processes that have been allowed to grow up do not help the most vulnerable.

Domestic violence is one of my key priorities. That’s why in March we published an Action Plan on tackling Violence Against Women and Girls. That’s why we have provided over £28 million of stable Home Office funding until 2015 for local specialist services. That’s why we have provided £900,000 until 2015 to support national helplines. And that’s why we have implemented legislation for multi-agency Domestic Homicide Reviews after every domestic murder.

I am clear that domestic violence must be taken seriously. In recent years the police have made great strides in how they deal with these crimes, with expert teams of officers who do tremendous work.

But the bureaucratic burden of existing processes too often stop those experts from giving help to all of the victims of this awful crime. Too often officers have to spend time filling in forms which may not be necessary or double entering data that could and should have been captured just once. They can only do so much – they can only help so many victims – when there is so much duplication, double-entry and wider bureaucracy.

By ending these wasteful processes we can free officers to reinvest time and resources in safeguarding those who need help - including those, like domestic abuse victims who are under 18, who may have previously been neglected. This isn’t about saving money – it’s about delivering a better service to vulnerable people.

This sort of approach would enhance public protection, not lessen it; it would improve the police response to these crimes, not hamper it.

ACPO have initiated a review of police domestic abuse processes with other relevant organisations. We will work with them to ensure best practice is effectively shared and seized upon by forces. And we will of course be working with NGOs with expertise in this area.

The next step will be to pilot the proposals in a number of police forces. If the pilots are successful, and if these improved measures are then rolled out across the country, they could achieve significant benefits, allowing more police time to be re-invested in those most at risk.

Overall Package

The overall package of reforms I have outlined today is a radical leap forward for policing. I know Home Secretaries and Policing Ministers have talked about cutting bureaucracy in the past. But they have not followed it through, and the police have seen more bureaucracy, not less.

The progress we have made in the last year, and the detail of the measures I have announced today shows that we are serious about slashing bureaucracy. As I said, these measures could realise savings of over 2.5 million police hours – or more than 1,200 police officer posts - every year. They will make a real difference to real police officers in their real work.

Working with the Police

The reforms I have announced today have been developed in close partnership with police professionals. Many of the suggestions stem from work by HMIC and, of course, Jan Berry has previously made excellent suggestions in this area. Chris Sims, the Chief Constable of the West Midlands, is now leading for ACPO on the reducing bureaucracy agenda and he is doing an excellent job. Tomorrow, the Policing Minister Nick Herbert will be addressing a joint Home Office/ACPO conference, alongside Chris.

At that conference Nick will be discussing with police officers exactly how we can make these changes happen in every one of our 43 forces. Because it will be key for the reforms I have outlined to be carried through by individual forces and individual officers at the local level. The potential rewards for the police are enormous, but they must make them happen.

Nick will also be making further new announcements about the wider bureaucracy and efficiency savings we are planning across the Criminal Justice System as a whole. This is the great benefit of having a Minister who spans the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice – he can look strategically across the whole system to redesign the processes that waste so much officer time.

Challenge to Chiefs

I have made a clear commitment today that the government is determined to get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy generated from the centre. But this commitment must be matched by police forces themselves.

I have instructed my officials to exhaustively check each and every requirement that the Home Office generates, so that I am satisfied that there is nothing – and I do mean nothing – that my department does which unnecessarily adds to the burden.

Any police officer that knows of government bureaucracy that we should get rid of should write to me or to Nick Herbert and we will make sure it is looked at.

But a great deal of the day to day bureaucracy that police officers encounter is actually generated by their own force.

So I want police forces across the country to follow our lead. Every single senior police officer should be asking themselves what they personally are doing to rid their officers of red tape. If we’ve scrapped a form at national level, then there had better be a really good reason for keeping it at local level. If we’ve done away with a target nationally, then stop chasing it locally. If we’ve got rid of a national regulation, then don’t bring in a local replacement.

That goes for police forces, but it will also apply to Police and Crime Commissioners, Community Safety Partnerships, the Courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, Probation and everyone else in the Criminal Justice System.

Particularly in these tough times, we need to cut out every possible cost and save every possible minute of wasted time. And that challenge extends beyond bureaucracy.

Because of the financial crisis left behind by the last government, police forces are having to make savings in their back and middle office functions to protect their frontline crime fighting capabilities. But this must be done intelligently – there’s no point in a police force cutting its HR function if that just means the burden falls on warranted officers instead – that is not a saving at all. Forces need to remove the burden altogether.

There are examples across the country of chief officers who are already making sensible savings to protect the frontline: in Avon and Somerset they are using outsourcing to make significant savings. Essex and Kent are sharing IT directors. Hampshire and Thames Valley Police are doing the same. These are all examples of chief officers using their professional judgement to best deploy their resources in the fight against crime. They didn’t wait for the Home Office to tell them what to do – they got on and did it. This is the challenge to chief officers. But it’s also an enormous opportunity.

Because they’ll no longer have the Home Office looking over their shoulder, they will be truly freed to show what they and their forces can do. Because there will be much less paperwork, they’ll be able to get their officers back on the fight against crime.

Changing the Culture

Dealing with police bureaucracy isn’t just about cutting out unnecessary forms – as important as that is. It’s also about redesigning whole systems and whole ways of doing things. That sort of transformative change can come from the bottom up – from forces themselves – as well as from the top down. But even more than this, it’s about changing the prevailing culture.

When the first response of the previous government to a tragedy was to change the law, have an inquiry, write more guidance, second guess the officers involved – it’s no wonder that we ended up with a tick-box, compliance culture in policing. Well times have changed.

I know that police officers can only ever judge a situation as they find it. When they confront a violent offender, when they go into a dangerous situation unarmed, when they put their lives on the line to protect the public, police officers have to make split second judgements under the most extreme pressure. If police officers do something wrong then they will always be responsible for their actions, but this government will always back officers who do the right thing.

The police are in the business of stopping tragedies before they happen. And it’s those successes that happen day in, day out that never get reported in the media. But unfortunately, despite the police’s best efforts, sometimes things do go wrong. I understand that and I will never blame the police for making decisions that they believed at the time were right.

We’ve stopped the weary cycle of over-reaction, inquiries, blame, legislation, codes and guidance, and blanket remedial training for all. We will take a different approach – we will trust the police.

Conclusion

So we’re delivering on the deal.

We’re keeping our promise to the police to get the government out of the way of policing, and we’re keeping our promise to the public to put them back in charge. We’ve done away with the diktats, we’ve scrapped the central targets, and we’re ripping up the red-tape.

We’re giving power back to the people through directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners, beat meetings and crime mapping. But this is not the end of the road, it’s just the beginning.

We won’t change cultures, attitudes and processes over night. Getting rid of the paperwork is as hard and grinding a task, as actually filling out the pointless forms in the first place. But I am absolutely determined to see this through.

I will lead, but police Chiefs need to lead too.

I want to see a police force trusted by the public, responsive to their needs; professional, respected and effective. I want officers out from behind their desks and back on the streets.

I want to see police officers with the discretion to do what they think is right; free from the interference of Whitehall, free to do their job, free to fight crime.


Thank you.'

COMMENT

It is the Chief Officers who must accept responsibility for the mess the service is in and Theresa May is handing them the means to put some of it right. Will they respond or defy her as so many have done already by clinging on to the pledge and performance targets as if they were the very source of life (which for many Chiefs, in receipt of thousands of pounds in performance related bonuses for many years, it was!).

Can we expect to see the rot removed from the recorded crime and detections process? We think that particular nut will prove harder to crack with so many Chief Officers out to protect themselves first and foremost.

That is the culture that must be reversed if real reform is to be delivered. Attention to all ACPO and Chief Officers that might read these pages. YOU must demonstrate loyalty to the troops above all else. These are the people that keep you in work, they deserve better than the disgraceful conduct and betrayals they have endured at your hands. You have many bridges to rebuild, start now before it's too late.

CRIME IS DOWN ..... OR IS IT? - PART 3 - HAVE YOUR SAY!

"Gaming - Cooking the Books" of Crime Statistics

As regular visitors to these pages will know, one of the most contraversial subjects that we have reported on most frequently in depth, is the manipulation of crime statistics and detections. Shortly after her appointment as Home Secretary, Theresa May scrapped the plethora of police performance targets in an effort to free up our police officers to focus on one single objective, what the front line police really want to do, what they do best and what the public want most - simply to cut crime. 

The challenge that faces the Home Secretary, the policing minister Nick Herbert and their team, is that confidence and trust in the integrity of recorded crime and police detections is at an all time low. This lack of trust is fuelled by years of political interference, linking crime reduction and detections to senior officer bonus payments and selective focusing by the media. Until this confidence and trust begins to return, any genuine advances in this area will be received with scepticism and suspicion. 

We have written at length in previous articles detailing the various tactics within the practice that has become known as "Gaming". Previous articles and reports on the subject can be accessed via the links at the foot of this piece. In summary, we conclude from our dialogue with serving officers from all over the UK, that the practices of statistic manipulation remain evident, perpetrating what we have called the "Crime of the Century" - a pernicious conspiratorial deception in an attempt to fool the public that crime has decreased and detections have risen. Officers of the highest rank appear to have colluded at worst, condoned at best, practices that amount to "Cooking the books" of crime for personal financial or career gain. Politicians have used the statistics to gain political advantage in the most blatant point scoring exercise, all based on the fallacy of falling crime and rising detections.

Taking courageous and sensible steps in an attempt to bring about reform, the Home Secretary has invited the National Statistician to conduct an independent review of crime statistics with the aim of increasing public confidence in these statistics. The Home Secretary has decided that the publication of crime statistics should be moved out of the Home Office to promote greater public trust and demonstrate their independence. The review is due to report at the end of April 2011. It is then intended to run a public consultation on the recommendations from the review.

The review will:

•consider gaps, discrepancies and discontinuities within crime statistics;
•recommend the best future location for the publication of crime statistics, and their associated data collection systems; and
•produce an action plan for the implementation of recommendations from the UK Statistics Authority’s report Overcoming Barriers to Trust in Crime Statistics: England and Wales published in May 2010.

The full terms of reference for the review can be downloaded from this link.

The National Statistician will use the following criteria in evaluating options for the future location of crime statistics. She will look at the impact on:


•public confidence in the statistics;
•quality of the statistics;
•burden on data suppliers;
•cost and efficiency;
•statistical expertise and capability; and
•uses and user needs.


The National Statistician would like to invite comments on this review and has published a news release to this effect which can also be downloaded from this link.

To feed your views into the review please respond using the Word template available for download by clicking here. Please send this form back via email or post:

Email: ns.crimereview@statistics.gsi.gov.uk

Crime Statistics Review
National Statistician's Office
Room 1.015
Government Buildings
Cardiff Road
Newport
NP10 8XG

The Overcoming Barriers report states:

Most commentators would agree that measuring crime and reporting on crime statistics are inherently difficult. The crime figures for England and Wales, for which the Home Office is responsible, have been subject to many improvements over the years and, in terms of technical quality, they compare well with corresponding statistics for other countries.


However, there continues to be public criticism of the statistics and mistrust in the way that they are used and quoted. As far as we can tell, this exceeds the level of criticism and mistrust in most other countries.

Research and previous reviews have suggested that this mistrust is exacerbated by the nature of some media reporting of the statistics. This may, in part, reflect wider mistrust of official information, not just statistics, but there are factors inherent to crime statistics that may also play a role:


• the existence of two major data sources (police recorded crime figures and the British Crime Survey). Both sources are essential to create a full picture, but their different strengths and weaknesses lead, on occasions, to a degree of public and political confusion and present an opportunity for selective and misleading quotation and reporting


• the difficulty of ensuring consistent recording practice across the 43 territorial police forces and the British Transport Police. The counting and classification of crime after it is reported to the police is a complex process; and changes to the rules and guidelines are necessary from time to time as problems emerge and are resolved, or in order to reflect changes in legislation. This is a proper part of a process of continuous updating and improvement, but it can also generate suspicion and confusion.

CAUSE FOR CONCERN

Theresa May, in appointing the National Statistician Jil Matheson to review the process, has begun to prize the lid off the "Can of Worms" of crime statistics. The greatest cause for concern is that those who have benefitted most from the orchestrated manipulation of the numbers down the years are adept at disguising their activity or worst, deflecting responsibility downward to the rank and file officers who have been instructed to carry out their strategies.  

The absolute facts must be unearthed if true confidence is to be restored. If, as it is believed, some Senior Officers have abused the process and knowingly received bonus payments for crime reduction and detections that have been manipulated, the scandal that will emerge will undoubtedly eclipse that of the MP Expenses saga. If proven to be the case, the consequences are worse, in that it would involve our most senior and previously trusted police officers, who are expected to conduct themselves in the most exemplorary manner. If this is, as we believe the case, the truth must come out if the slate of crime statistics is to be wiped clean and moved forward with honesty and transparency. If senior officers have knowingly perpetrated or condoned such activity, we must ask and answer the tough question: "Are such officers fit to be controlling our police service?"

From all the evidence we have compiled, from serving, former and retired officers all around the country, we have every reason to suspect that Jil Matheson will face resistance to uncovering the absolute truth. We hope that she will demonstrate the courage and determination to expose any improper activity and that the Home Secretary will deal with any transgressions quickly and publicly.

Concern exists over the "regulatory bodies" of the HMIC (Her Majesties Inpector of Constabuary), the IPCC (Indpendent Police Complaints Commission), and the IOC, (Office of the Information Commissioner), all of whom have been aware of the "Gaming" practices prevalent in our police forces, yet have brought no individual or force to account for fear of the further bad "PR" this would undoubtedly create. If the regulatory bodies have indeed failed in the execution of their respective duties, Jil Matheson, Theresa May and all who seek transparent and honest reporting will face an immense challenge.

The majority of this activity, if and when reealed and proven, will be shown to have taken place under the Labour administration, focused as it was with all the pubic sector, on performance targeting accompanied by financial incentives. This is a divisive tactic, open to abuse and manipulation and Theresa May has a limited window of opportunity to expose the activity before the opposition can weaken her argument that this took place on their watch.

A simplistic view is that the proposed introduction of Locally Elected Police and Crime Commissioners may in part, have been born out of a mistrust of the senior officers to exert proper fiscal control over the fiefdoms Nick Herbert is keen to break up. An extension of this line of thought is that perhaps this is partly why policing was not "ring fenced" and protected from the budget cuts the service now faces. Could it be that profligate spending combined with fudged crime statistics have contributed to the belief that the forces can now achieve "more with less?" and that so many officers fear the security of their future?  

HAVE YOUR SAY

Here at the Thin Blue Line, we are compiling our own submission to the National Statisticians review. We intend to pull no punches. Coincidentally, we are in the process of compiling our own, in depth report "Crime Of the Century", which will appear on these pages when complete. This will accompany our submission to Jil Matheson.

Rank and file officers are naturally fearful of the consequences of speaking out about strategies imposed on them by their senior officers. We have collated numerous examples of "Cuffing", "Stitching", "Skewing" and "Nodding" in forces all around the country. For the uninitiated, or those who simply need a reminder, we have explained these terms below:

1. ‘Cuffing’ is about making crime seem to disappear by failing to record it. The term ‘cuffing’ derives from the magician’s trick of making something disappear up the cuff of their shirt. This is associated with an ‘evidential’ crime recording standard which places the onus on the victim to establish that a crime has been committed. This allows officers to use their discretion on whether or not to accept the victim’s account and record the crime for investigation. This has a long association with ‘gaming’, as officers are known to use a variety of tactics to prevent the crime ‘appearing on the books’.

2. ‘Stitching’ is the fabrication of evidence. Whilst the use of such tactics to secure convictions at Court has largely been addressed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, administrative procedures still offer the opportunity to obtain detections in circumstances where there is in-sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. These procedures include cautions, informal warnings, and in some circumstances an offence could be recorded as detected without the suspect being made aware of the allegation against them.

3. ‘Skewing’ is about concentrating effort and resources on areas subject to performance indicators. This involves investing less in the investigation of the more difficult and resource intensive areas of police activity, such as the prevention and investigation of serious crime i.e. child abuse and sexual offences. It could also involve the re-deployment of officers to more affluent neighbourhoods where crime is easier to investigate and detect (Patrick 2004).

4. ‘Nodding’ refers to the practice whereby suspects ‘nod’ at locations where they have committed crimes and are able to have them ‘written off’ without any risk of increasing their sentence. The legitimate aims of this administrative procedure is to reduce court time and enable offenders to admit outstanding offences i.e. ‘clean the sheet’ prior to sentencing. This allows the courts to impose a sentence which takes into account the extent of the offender’s criminal activities and alleviates the offender of the fear of being re-apprehended after they have served their sentence for an offence committed prior to incarceration. This administrative procedure has a long history of abuse and appears in two formats; ‘offences taken into consideration (TIC)’ and ‘prison write offs’, which allows offenders to confess to offences post sentence. In these circumstances a senior police officer or member of the Crown Prosecuting Service (CPS) would make the decision to charge on the grounds of whether the individual was likely to receive an increase in their custodial sentence. In both cases the police should have sufficient evidence to charge the suspect if they subsequently decline to accept the offences as TIC or ‘prison write off’. These procedures have long been associated with abuses involving collusion between officers and suspects. The offer of inducements in return for admissions lies at the heart of these illicit exchanges.

Readers are of course free to click the link to the contribution document above and to send it by post or e mail to the addresses supplied. However, there will be many officers who will wish to expose what they believe to be improper practices they have been instructed to implement, but are fearful of exposure and the consequences. (We are only too aware that the police service does not yet protect well intending officers as well as it might). For those officers who wish to contribute anonymously, we would welcome examples that we may include to demonstrate where changes are necessary. These contributions can be made directly to our e mail contact address at the foot of the page, or via anonymous contribution on this or other similar pages.

LET'S PUT THIS WRONG ACTIVITY TO BED ONCE AND FOR ALL.

One final point. No doubt readers will by now have seen and perhaps experimented with the online crime mapping at http://www.police.uk/ Whilst well intended, the site is at its earliest stages of development and we hope it proves to be an invaluable tool to inform the community of instances of crime in their local area. However, until the process of recording and presenting crime statistics earns the reputation for transparency and accuracy; and the integrity, trust and credibility of the data is restored, the jury will remain out on this one.

Our recent articles and reports about crime reporting :-

(hopefully the link label will decribe each article sufficiently).
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2011/01/crime-is-down-or-is-it-part-2-lies.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2011/01/crime-is-down-or-is-it-part-1.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/11/top-cop-pay-bonus-scandal-chiefs-still.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/05/too-many-chiefs-part-3-full-report.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/05/too-many-police-chiefs-part-2-bonus.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/05/too-many-chiefs-part-1-bonus-scandal.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/04/crime-of-century-deception-of-falling.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/04/criminal-justice-uk-police-part-2.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/04/criminal-justice-uk-police-part-1.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/02/chief-police-officers-and-home-office.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/01/top-cops-are-still-fiddling-crime.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2010/01/national-police-improvement-agency-yet.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/12/force-or-farce-police-recorded-crime.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/12/top-cops-pay-crime-scandal.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/11/home-office-crime-figures-conspiring-to.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/10/fudging-crime-statistics-is-no-way-to.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/10/crime-mapping-is-police-recorded-crime.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/10/no-faith-in-police-statistics.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/crime-statistics-hide-truth.html
http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/extracts-from-labours-home-secretary.html

BBC News - Theresa May: 'Police have become disconnected'

BBC News - Theresa May: 'Police have become disconnected'

To watch the Home Secretary deliver the radical proposals to the House of Commons click here

To read or download the Home Office document "Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting police and the people" click here

CHIEF CONSTABLES DEFY THERESA MAY OVER POLICING PLEDGE

Our thanks go to the latest post from Inspector Gadget for drawing our attention to this one.

Over half of the 43 police forces of England and Wales have simply ignored the Home Secretary and carried on bullying officers to meet the Policing Pledge and Public Confidence targets, that she formally abolished on 29th June. Over 200 contributors have commented on this article, reporting the examples of forces whose Chief Officers are openly defying the instruction from the Theresa May, effectively sticking their fingers up to the Government.

As far back as November 08, Jacqui Smith, then Home Secretary was congratulating Essex as the 1st force to publicly roll out the pledge.

From the outset, many common sense coppers agreed with the statement that the pledge was a “costly charade” doomed to fail, that would waste public money and valuable police resources administering the latest Government & Chief Officers flight of fancy. Visionary commentators, from both inside and out of the service felt it was “stating the blindingly obvious”.

There are few better examples than the pledge to illustrate how excessive political interference in operational policing, both exposes the naivety of many Chief Officers and reveals how costly and dangerous a little knowledge can be.

The origins of the initiative can be found in three key documents – the Flanagan Review of Policing, the Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime report by Louise Casey, and the Government’s Policing Green Paper. Ms Casey, who previously led Nu Labour initiatives on homelessness, anti-social behaviour and respect, recommended that all forces across England and Wales should put in place “a local police commitment in every neighbourhood” based on the ten approaches identified by the public in her report. She called for the commitments to be put in place by the beginning of 2009.

Many saw Gordon Browns endorsement of the pledge as the beginning of the end when he described it as the start of “a new era of policing”.

At the time Jacqui Smith said “I passionately believe that empowering the public to get a good deal through the Policing Pledge will play a powerful role in driving up the quality of policing for our citizens and in our communities”.

Embarrassingly now perhaps, that enthusiasm was shared both by ACPO and by the Essex Chief Constable, Roger Baker. Cambridgeshire Chief Constable Julie Spence, ACPO’s lead on citizen focus, said that chief officers were “unswervingly committed to a visible, accessible, responsive and familiar policing style, focused on the expectations and needs of local people,” and added: “I hope the national Policing Pledge will help reassure the public that policing is responsive to their needs.”

Twelve months and £3.5million worth of media advertising later, the Advertising Standards Authority ordered that the adverts were misleading by promising that patrols would be visible 80% of the time. The adverts were withdrawn. The HMIC added fuel to the flames when they announced that the majority of forces were failing to deliver on the commitment.

And yet, the tenacity with which the unelected defend their privileges never ceases to amaze us. Under a Labour administration the Police chiefs were digging in every bit as stubbornly as Eurocrats, and for the same reason: they hate the idea of having to answer to the rest of us, to accept that their precious pledge was the flop that the front-liners and police bloggers predicted it would be.

The pledge, along with all the other performance targets such as the nebulous single measure of public confidence, dodgy crime statiticss reporting and fudged detections have served as a convenient cloak for Chief Officers to hide behind and screw the system for their bonuses.

To quote the refreshing Theresa May:

‘We want to let you get on with policing without Government constantly sitting on your shoulders telling you how to do it. I know that some officers like the Policing Pledge, and some, I’m sure, like the comfort of knowing they’ve ticked boxes. But targets don’t fight crime; targets hinder the fight against crime. In scrapping the confidence target and the Policing Pledge, I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a 30-point plan; it is to cut crime. No more, and no less.’

And therein lies the rub. Stripping out all the potty projects and targets will expose the managerial weaknesses of many Chief Officers, who “Just don’t get it”.

Many of these Chiefs are so out of touch with real policing and have never “fought crime” on the street as the front-liners do 24/7. Their biggest fear must surely be that they will no longer be able to hide behind the latest fad project, pretty power-point presentation or yet another form that is “essential”.

How will they cut crime?

Well it would be brilliant if they would face up to the truth that the figures have been fudged for political and financial gain for donkeys years, but no doubt they will continue to “Cook the Books”.

The rot in recorded crime and detections goes back many years. It was interesting to see the retired West Midlands Detective Chief Inspector, Dr Rodger Patrick confirming these practices are still prevalent in the Telegraph article :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html

“Cuffing” “Stiching” “Skewing” and “Nodding” are all familiar terms to both the front line and Chief Officers, as methods of manipulating the numbers to perpetuate the illusion of falling crime. We know from our front line contacts that the practices remain endemic across the forces. Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation said: “This research demonstrates that senior officers are directing and controlling widespread manipulation of crime figures. The public are misled, politicians can claim crime is falling and chief officers are rewarded with performance-related bonuses.”

Denis O’Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, published an official report into the way police record violent crime and admitted the figures may be skewed by “perverse incentives” around government performance targets.

As Dr Patrick discovered though, the HMIC and Police Standards Unit have displayed a general tendency to underplay the scale and nature of the practices. It certainly begs the question as to why there are no examples of Chief Officers being brought to book, or even publicly criticised for this type of crime figure manipulation. Apparently, the HMIC refer examples of widespread gaming to the Home Secretary or police authority, rather than “hold the chief constable to account” because of the risk of political embarrassment.

HMIC inspectors should be made accountable to Parliament rather than the Home Office, and should also be drawn from other professions rather than solely from senior police ranks.

The months leading up to the end of the financial year are particularly challenging within police circles for reporting crime. In particular, the challenges and pressure are aimed at the front line rank and file. These months see a marked increase in pressure from Chief Officers cascading down through the ranks, urging officers to “censor” the crimes that are reported. The reason for this is clear. The Chiefs are massively financially remunerated with bonuses for decreased crime and increased detections and this is the quarter when they can exert pressure down the line to protect their “gravy train” from derailing.

One police blogger drew attention to the increased pressure exerted by Chief Officers until the end of the financial year. To quote an e mail from his Senior Officer from his article:-

“They (front line officers) must not, under any circumstances, get out on the street and find any more crime. Not until the next financial year anyway. All their accumulated leave is to be taken between now and April. It’s best to have them out-of-the-way, they just can’t be trusted to stay indoors”.

How crooked the system intended to prevent and detect crime has become. You only have to read some of the officers comments on these blog pages to see that the pressure and corrupt practices are rife. Ms May and her colleagues face a mammoth challenge unraveling this pernicious conspiracy and web of deceit that has been foisted upon the tax payer.

Not surprising that front line officers feel they are doing the dirty work of the Chiefs, betraying the public trust and feeling pressured into compliance.

Even less surprising is the Chief Officer resistance to let go of the pledge and other doubtful projects that have disguised their incompetence’s and failings for so long.

Poice bloggers are forced to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, in fear of the career reprisals that Senior Officers will impose in the event of their identities being discovered. The officers we have contact with are loyal and committed both to the service and to the reforms advocated by Theresa May. All they want is to play their part in delivering the objective, of truly cutting crime, not cooking the books or manipulating numbers, but in restoring public confidence in the best way possible, by visibly protecting life and property and improving the quality of our society. No one wants to make political statements or be seen to support one politician or another. All they want is a return to common sense policing, a fair and effective delivery of justice.

In support of these frontline officers, we name and shame those forces that, as of today, are openly resisting this opportunity to scrap a project that simply didn't work in practice. We will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions as to their motives.

FORCES THAT REFUSE TO SCRAP THE FAILED POLICE PLEDGE

POSTSCRIPT :-

16th August 2010 : I have today received a reply to two e mails sent to the Home Secretary concerning the forces that have failed to withdraw the Policing Pledge.

I attach a copy of the letter here for information.

The key paragraph reads :-

"The Home Secretary has made it clear to all Chief Constables that the Policing Pledge has now been scrapped, along with the last remaining Home Office target set on the police. Police forces must tailor their service to the needs of local communities rather than following central targets and diktats, which have served to create an increase in bureaucracy. It is now for each police force to determine how best to cut crime and deliver on the priorities that matter to local communities in their area. In future, it will be down to the Police and Crime Commissioner for each force to set priorities locally and for the public to hold them to account for performance".