On Police Chiefs: "Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.".

"40% detections, brilliant lad! Now off you go . . . "

"Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power."

- George Bernard Shaw

As yet another set of Home Office Crime Statistics are released, with more than a passing resemblance to a story from the brothers Grimm, those creative Home Office statisticians have appended another masterpiece of deceptional fiction in the form of the report entitled Crimes detected in England and Wales 2010/11.

Peter Fahy, Chief of GMP has denied police corruption is widespread – he is unconvinced corruption is a ‘major problem’. His comments might turn out a little premature now that the Prime Minister has ordered a review of all forces’ media relationships and in particular with News International.

It would be naive to believe that the extent of the problem is restricted solely to the Met. Chief Constables and senior officers up and down the country must be fearing who the spotlight will fall on next, many seriously considering if they should jump first and save their gold plated pensions before being pushed.

The morale of decent officers had been damaged by claims which have emerged during the scandal. However, it is not the decent, honest officers that need worry about the fall out from this saga, it is those who have acted inappropriately, even criminally.

So Mr Fahy is not convinced that corruption is a major problem?

What is the pernicious, deceitful manipulation of recorded crime and detections over a 20 year period, where Chief Officers knowingly accepted 10-15% performance bonuses related to fudged numbers if it isn’t corruption?

Similar views have been expressed many times by experienced and respected serving, former or retired police officers. Have a wander over to Bankside Babble, the author of which is a respected voice on the subject. Others worth a visit are our friends over at the Surrey Constabulary blog, Inspector Gadget, 200 weeks, All Copped Out, PC Bloggs, and others too numerous to mention, all of whom have scant regard for the integrity of the statistics they are forced to fudge.  

I’m not talking of mass individual corruption here, but institutional corruption, in the formation and/or condoning of strategies that force lower ranks to compromise their integrity with fallacious crime reporting and detections? Worse, when the faeces strikes the oscillating mechanism, who will end up being held accountable? Certainly not the teflon coated ACPO ranks I’ll wager.

Police corruption comes in many guises, from accepting bribes to fabricating evidence in order to secure the conviction of a suspected criminal. Such a wide variety makes it difficult to formulate a definition which encapsulates all forms of the behaviour. Earlier studies tended to concentrate on the more obvious forms of illegal behaviour, which are adequately legislated for in criminal law:

“Police scandals are of three predominant varieties: corruption, such as accepting bribes; procedural abuse that perverts the course of justice; and the excessive use of force against suspects.” (Waddington 1999:121)

However such a definition does not extend to behaviours designed to give the impression of improved performance by perverse means. Such practices are referred to within the service as ‘fiddling the figures’, ‘massaging the books’ or more recently ‘good housekeeping’ (Chatterton 2008:46). In academic circles the phenomenon is referred to as ‘gaming’ and has recently been much associated with Performance Management Loveday (1994 & 1999),De Bruijn (2001 & 2007), Bevan & Hood (2006).

The evidence to suggest the involvement of senior officers in ‘gaming’ behaviour is not surprisingly limited. Kappeler et al (1994) noted that senior officers entered into an ‘unholy alliance’ with junior officers, tolerating illicit activities as long as they were effective while Diez (1995) suggested senior officers manipulated performance information to give a favourable impression of the organisation.

Chief Officers and SMT’s clearly take the view that probity comes at the cost of reduced performance. So, Chief Constables and some SMT’s have been fiddling the stats for donkeys years. However, most are cute enough to force the muck downhill, either saying they only encouraged ethical practices or they were simply ignorant of what’s been going on. In fact, all the evidence we have accumulated indicates the problem is more of an institutional nature than individual. Fudging crime statistics and detections for career and financial gain cannot be right. Peter Fahy says that corruption within the service is not endemic. Should the full story about crime be finally revealed, there will be many that will take the opposing view, particularly regarding the ACPO ranks who are ultimately responsible for the processes.

The facts remain:-

• Forces are fiddling TIC’s something rotten (still). Offenders serving custodial sentences admit 40+% of the burglary and vehicle offences detected this way. There is no come back as the system allows (with the authorisation of a Guvnor) the admissions without court attendance or any punitive measures. I thought this practice died years ago, but all they’ve done is adjusted the framework. In return for inducements, or a nice ride out from clink, scrotes will admit 1000 ‘s of offences, many of which they didn’t commit. Have a looks at oneof our colleagues posts at http://blog.old-and-bold.com/wordpress/?p=5470  to witness one of many examples we have on file illustrating the extent of the problem.

• False reporting strategies (well intended initially for false mobile phone theft reports) have been extended to all volume acquisitive crime in lots of forces, suppressing the crime levels dramatically.

• Abuse of cautions (20% of detections) Fixed penalties (7%), TIC’s (6%) and cannabis warnings (7%) is rife. The burden of proof principle seems to have been ignored in ’000′s of such instances, whereby cases that would never go the distance at court due to weak evidence, are all too often disposed of by these methods as an attractive alternative for the offender to avoid the court process. In such cases, abuse of discretionary powers results in poor policing practice.

• Cannabis warnings account for 7% of national detections. Whilst no fan of “whacky backy” ‘000’s of police man hours are consumed at the direction of SMT’s just to perpetuate the myth of 28% national detection averages. The same applies to the minor public order and threats offences, (playground & mobile phone threats etc). Literally ‘000’s of them driving up detection rates fallaciously and diverting officer attention away from the more serious, harder to resolve crimes.

• SMT’s up and down the country screen out ‘000’s of harder to detect crimes, in favour of the middle class “Quick Win” offences, what we used to call domestics that have been allowed to be upgraded to technical criminal matters. Teams of officers redeployed to tick boxes rather than acquire the investigative expertise to resolve crimes that matter most to the public.

• Forces discovered during HMIC Inspections to be keeping unofficial crime registers to keep the numbers down. (We knew them as occurrence books MK47). HMIC discovered forces using these for crimes that never hit the books.

• Forces abusing the incident reporting process, issuing incident numbers that never elevate to crime numbers.

• Re classifying burglaries as damage to dwellings/commercial properties (thousands of them!!)

• Re classifying vehicle offences downward so they appear in larger lesser offence groups.

• Re classifying robberies. No offender caught = no mens rea = lesser “other theft”

• Serious offences cautioned or PND issued

• HMIC have been particularly reluctant to open up on the subject, despite a number of force inspections revealing clear evidence of gaming activity, no senior officer has been brought to account. In 2007 HMIC carried out an audit of detections for the years 2005/6 and 2006/7 (Home Office Nov.2006 & 2007). The results of this audit were not made public, although Police Authorities were provided with a copy of the results on their own force only. This was a deviation from the policy of publication pursued by HMIC since 1991. However HMIC did subsequently publish a summary of the results on their web site in response to a request made under the provisions of the Freedom Of Information Act. The audit showed 33 out of 44 forces were graded ‘poor’ on non-sanctioned detections, made up in the main of informal warnings. This audit uncovered cases where offences had been recorded as detected without the suspects' and the victims' knowledge. We wre granted access to copy correspondence between ACPO and the IOC obtained lawfully by FOI requests. The extracts below are a contemporaneous record of what was contained in the correspondence. This Association of Police Officers wrote to the Information Commissioner to inform him of the breaches of the Data Protection Act stating:

“The nub of the issue faced by the service is that a proportion of the offences detected by non-sanction means fail the ‘administrative test’ in that they do not comply with HOCR.
The most frequent errors are:

• The sufficiency of evidence (this is a judgement issue with the HMIC and forces coming to a different view) to justify/support a non-sanctioned detection.

• A failure to record whether the victim has been informed that the offence has been detected through non-sanctioned means, and

• A failure to record that the suspect has been informed.”
(ACPO letter to the Information Commissioner 13.2.2007 unpublished)

The Information Commissioner articulates the crux of the matter in his response:

“From my perspective I am most concerned that individuals were not being informed that they were considered to be the perpetrator of an offence even though this did not involve a legal process, especially if such information could be used in future Enhanced Disclosure relating to them. This clearly breaches the requirement of the first data protection principle that the processing of personal data must be done fairly. I am also worried by the sufficiency of evidence used. If a police force is going to label an individual as the de facto perpetrator then they must have a good objective reason for doing so. Not having this could lead to a record being viewed as inadequate or inaccurate (breaches of the third and fourth principles respectively).”
(Information Commissioner 26.3.2007: Unpublished)

However, he declined to take any proactive action to alert the public:

“I would prefer to work with chief officers to ensure compliance. I would like to know more detail about how this has come about and what action is being taken to ensure future compliance” (Information Commissioner 26.3.2007: Unpublished)

Further correspondence from ACPO dated 10.4.2007 provided further assurances:

“Please rest assured that the issues that have come to light as a result of the recent Association of Chief Police Officers’ and HMIC audits have been taken extremely seriously by the police service. To this end a series of meetings have taken place in fast time with all relevant parties, including the Home Office, to consider how best to address the concerns that you raised to which we are alive”
(ACPO letter to the Information Commissioner 10.4.2007: Unpublished)

This correspondence demonstrates that ACPO, together with HMIC, their principal regulator, and the Home Office, to whom they are politically accountable, as well as the Information Commissioner, decided to deal with a major failing without making the public aware of the nature or scale of the issue. However ACPO were particularly vague on the nature and scale of the problem:

“ACPO has reviewed a snapshot of disclosures for the period 2003 – 2005 (for a range of ‘high risk’ offences). Whilst the process has (but for a handful of cases) worked effectively.” (ACPO letter to the Information Commissioner 13.2.2007 unpublished)

ALL IN ALL, ONE ALMIGHTY FUDGE BY THE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES, WHO SEEM TO BE “RUNNING SCARED” AT THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF OPENING THIS CAN OF WORMS.

• Bear in mind that over the 15-20 or so years that the numbers have been fiddled so astronomically, there were Chiefs and SMT’s receiving between 10-15% of their £100k basic as bonus for successful performance management. So, in short, manipulate the numbers disgracefully and perniciously beyond recognition, satisfy the police authority targets were met, get paid thousands as a bonus for hitting targets! As previous articles on this site reflects, if this isn’t corruption in public office, we would have to ask "what is???".

• Much of this information was passed onto the National Statistician (Jil Matthieson) after she was commissioned by Theresa May to review crime statistics and detections. Whilst pleased to get a mention in the acknowledgements of her report (under the company name), she too has thus far failed to take the bull by the horns. When push came to shove, all she proposed was that the presentation of the data should be independently processed through her office. It remains to be seen whether she will have the courage for the job.

• In view of the fact that a considerable number of high powered police chiefs may turn out to be implicated in doubtful practices, it may well be that other means to bring the information to the surface may need to be considered.

All in all, a real can of worms. My greatest concern for the service (a view shared with Federation Chairman Paul McKeever) is that this fallacious picture of success on reducing crime and increasing detections, played its part in the inclusion of policing in the comprehensive spending review. Which minister in his/her right mind would have authorised cuts with rising crime and downward spiralling detections? The allocation of funding is partly arrived at through assessment of performance criteria. So, the conclusion we must draw from this, is that the deceptive practices have come back to bite the backsides of the Chief Officers that introduced or at the very least condoned them. “Authors of their own misfortune” springs to mind.

The fact remains that there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the crime statistics and detections scandal pales the MP expenses saga into relative insignificance. I would not wish to see any unnecessary obstructions placed in the path of honourable, honest policing. However, unless and until this mess is exposed fully, public confidence cannot be expected. I have little or no confidence that MP’s of any colour would have the courage or motivation required to take this forward.

Finally, I would commend anyone interested in the truth about police detections to read  a report commissioned by the Joint Central Committee (JCC) of the Police Federation of England and Wales. The JCC, having become increasingly concerned by a barrage of reports it was receiving from the Detectives' Forum and Joint Branch Boards around the country that the resilience of General Office CID was being severely diminished and that there was a debilitating shortage of trained and experienced detectives. The reported
consequence was that some serious crime was not being properly investigated and
detected.

The JCC therefore commissioned Dr Michael Chatterton to conduct an independent study into General Office CID to examine the issues of resilience, workload and training and to identify the consequences.

Mike Chattertons commissioned report is attached, which is well worth a read. I refer to it frequently in my reports and on the site as it contains substantial evidential content from rank and file officers and SMT’s alike, none of which contradicts the views mentioned here.
 
Chatterton opens the report by identifying the detrimental effects of the sanctions detection regime and the excessively rigid and bureaucratic approach to targets and performance management. A combination of these is having a pernicious and perverse effect on police operations.


• diverting police priorities from serious crime to chasing minor offences;
• criminalising members of the public who are not criminals in the accepted sense;
• giving the public a false sense of security that serious crime is being detected with increasing effectiveness by the police;
and
• undermining the discretion necessary for the impartial discharge of the office of constable.

To quote Mike Chatterton … “There is no change in Government and senior police management policy which is at once more urgent and important than this”.

"Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy and make their prophecies come true, but they can also lie and make their lies come true".
Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American philosopher and author

IF POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY, WHO THE HELL CAN WE TRUST?

As readers of these pages will know, the main topics of my articles centre around policing and the criminal justice system.

However, applying the principle of "cause and effect", it is clear that the problems that exist within our society today do not rest entirely with the police or the judiciary. When looking for causes, the problems and challenges our communities face are both "bottom up" and top down".

The root cause of many of our problems actually starts with the corrupt practices prevalent within hieracrch of the sectors that influence our lives most, politics, banking education, health, media and yes the criminal justice arena.  

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition" Thomas Jefferson.

Venality Definition: "Prostitution of talents or offices or services for reward. The condition of being susceptible to bribery or corruption. The use of a position of trust for dishonest gain".

In an excellent recent article, Max Hastings tells it as it is. To read the article at source click here, or read on below.

Our great institutions are becoming tainted by venality and incompetence.

Where are leaders of integrity when we need them?

The resignation of Rebekah Brooks as chief executive of Rupert Murdoch’s News International represents a new eruption in the phone-hacking scandal that has damaged the media, police and the Cameron government.

Not impressed with "Curruption UK"

Yet this is only the latest in a long series of blows that have struck almost every major national institution in Britain in recent years: the bank bosses were exposed in 2008 as greedy incompetents, and both Houses of Parliament were rocked last year by revelations of systemic expenses fraud.

The British have always liked to see people at the head of their society to whom they could look upwards with a little respect, and I do not mean footballers or TV celebrities.

Yet today we find ourselves searching almost despairingly for leaders in politics, in the Church, in the professions, in corporate business and in public service who seem deserving of trust.

The historian G.M. Young asserted complacently in the 1930s that ‘the four most efficient institutions in England are the police, railways, trade unions and joint stock banks — all founded 100 years ago by the same Conservative government’. Not only would Young find it hard to applaud any of those bodies today, but he would struggle to find any national institution that looks untarnished.

When the dust settles from the phone-hacking row, the most serious reputational damage will almost certainly prove to have been sustained by the police. The public is justly cynical about Britain’s media underworld. People may be disgusted by the revelations of the past fortnight, but I doubt they are shocked.

The police, however, are a different kettle of fish. We need to believe that Britain’s law enforcers are honest and efficient. Yet this saga deals a body-blow to any such presumptions.

Whatever the findings of the judicial inquiry into phone-hacking and bribery, we can already see that some of Britain’s most senior officers had close and almost certainly improper relations with News International.

Some of us, including successive Home Secretaries, have believed for decades that the police culture is rotten.

An intelligence official told me recently how shocked he was by systemic and malicious police leaks about an important case in which the Secret Intelligence Service was involved.

The police record as catchers of criminals is patchy, to say the least. Yet their bosses close ranks to deny any shortcomings — except, of course, in their financial resourcing — and fight reform tooth and nail.

Some years ago, speaking at a conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers, I suggested that the breakdown of the traditional alliance between the police and the middle class was a tragedy.

When I sat down, a succession of angry chief constables rose to rubbish my remarks. A senior BBC executive with whom I had shared the platform observed afterwards he could not decide whether I had been brave or foolish. But almost everything I said would be taken for granted by any ordinary citizen.

The police will never regain our trust until they get decent leadership and smash the so-called ‘canteen culture’ that pervades the force. Now, surely, the game is up. The decent officers, of whom there are many, deserve much better than they have got, and so does the British public.

Radical change must be forced on the police, for their sakes as well as ours. Because I am a historian, I hesitate before damning the current membership of the House of Commons because it is easy to catalogue shockers from the past.

Consider, for instance, a survey of MPs between 1790 and 1820: among 658 Members, 50 acknowledged having fathered illegitimate children; 220 were financially ruined and 35 died in exile abroad in consequence; five were expelled for fraud; and at least 19 committed suicide, while six went mad.

By that standard, today’s MPs are no worse than many of their predecessors.

But many people are deeply dismayed by the manner in which all the political parties and indeed this Government are dominated by people who have never done anything. That is to say, they have never held proper jobs, or served in the Armed Forces, or learned how businesses are run.

Few have ever been tested in the fires of conflict or even commerce. Their whole adult and even adolescent lives have been devoted to politics, unlike the Denis Healeys and Michael Heseltines, the Ernie Bevins and Willie Whitelaws of former generations.

They have exhaustively studied polls and focus groups, TV interviewing techniques and speech-writing, but they know next to nothing about what most of us would call real life. Moreover, ministers no longer have top-flight officials to cover for them: there has been a grave decline in the Civil Service.

Much as we love to mock Sir Humphrey Appleby, the devious under-secretary in Yes, Minister, he was jolly clever. So too were some of his real-life counterparts, men such as Sir Frank Cooper and Sir Michael Quinlan at the Ministry of Defence in the Eighties.

Do the police need a top down clean up?

Old Whitehall mandarins might frustrate ministers by running rings around them, but they had the brains to save them from their mistakes and keep the machine running.

I remember Quinlan sighing to me about the Ministry of Defence when diarist, serial adulterer and career scoundrel Alan Clark was a minister: ‘We’ve only got one politician here with any brains — and he’s mad.’


But most of today’s senior Whitehall officials are nothing like as bright as Quinlan and other big figures of past generations. A headmaster of Eton remarked a few years ago that, when he first went to the school, every autumn a handful of the best leavers joined the Home Civil Service.

Not any more. Nowadays, if they want fun they join the media; if they crave money they head for the City. In David Cameron’s shoes, I would recognise a priority to get better people into the top Whitehall jobs if he is to have any hope of getting anything done.

Revitalising the upper reaches of the Civil Service could do more than almost anything else to make us a better-governed country.

As for our religious leaders, we should acknowledge that the Church of England has always been an object of mockery.

A century- and-a-half ago, Anthony Trollope found plenty to laugh at, in his great tales of the clerical world of Barsetshire. Does anybody remember the Seventies TV comedy series All Gas And Gaiters?

But until recent times, the teasing was affectionate. Decent local vicars, of whom there were many, commanded the regard and gratitude of their communities.

Yet in the space of a generation, respect for the C of E has almost evaporated. It is racked by rows about gay and women priests. Nobody any more sings Onward Christian Soldiers, which we all used to love belting out, because prelates are terrified it might suggest enthusiasm for the war in Afghanistan.

Fewer people regularly attend Britain’s churches than Britain’s mosques.

Gaffe Prone Dr Williams

The tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury of that absurd druid Rowan Williams has been embarrassing: he cannot open his mouth without inserting a ski boot in it. Most recently, he questioned the democratic legitimacy of the Coalition, claiming that ‘no one’ had voted for its flagship policies to reform welfare, health and education, which he said were causing ‘anxiety and anger’.

What most of us look for in a spiritual leader is wisdom. In Williams, instead, we see ineffable silliness. The C of E has lost its dignity, without discovering a role.

Britain’s judiciary is still full of clever people, but its reputation has been severely damaged by its assumption of powers that most citizens think far beyond its rightful competence, and often insulting to common sense.

Court decisions, often deriving from judges’ personal interpretation of the doom-laden human rights laws, make effective immigration control almost impossible, leave terrorist sympathisers at large in the community, and make Britain the world’s haven for both foreign benefits claimants and Islamic militants.

Respect for the medical and teaching professions has ebbed. NHS GPs now earn six-figure incomes for doing less work than ten years ago, but still they have their hands out for more.

After asking a local doctor to counter-sign an official form for me recently, I was amazed to receive a bill for £25 for doing so. I responded that the practice could sue for the money if it chose, then changed GPs. The demand reflected an attitude of mind wholly alien to that of service to the community.

As for teachers, I feel less cross with them for striking in protest about their pension changes than for refusing to teach our children what they need to learn to survive in the 21st century, and for their bitter resistance to reform.

The entire profession remains in denial about the debasement of exam results and university degrees. Where once the local teacher in a street or village was a figure to admire, today teacher training colleges turn out jobsworths clinging to Leftist ideologies even a Cuban might think outdated.

Not much more need be said about bankers, save that their armour of greed and complacency remains proof against shame or social pressure to change their ways.

Chancellor George Osborne and Bank of England Governor Mervyn King are bent upon reforming British banking. But, tragically, the Americans refuse to move in step.

Meanwhile, the British Army and the monarchy remain almost the only national institutions that still command solid regard, the latter chiefly because of the personal conduct of the Queen and Prince Philip. I doubt whether either has accepted an unsuitable ‘freebie’ in their lives. They simply know how to behave — as too many of their family do not.

The Prince of Wales seems increasingly detached from planet Earth. Yet he’s determined to impose his highly controversial views on the nation — and its government — and in a constitutionally ill-judged, if not improper, fashion.

Prince Andrew’s dalliances with foreign dictators and gangsters seem repugnant, while Prince Edward’s recent appearances in military uniform have made him seem ridiculous to the British Armed Forces from whom he once fled.

Many of us tremble for the monarchy’s prospects when the Queen goes — as, with luck, she will not for many years yet — unless Prince William and his new bride can revive the ethic of discipline and discretion which his grandmother has wonderfully sustained.

To preserve the crown, the Royal Family as a whole need to behave with grace, avoid unsuitable company and keep their mouths shut. Only if their advisers can reconcile them to these three things will this vital institution be secure.

There seems a common strand in the decline of respect for almost all the others: so ubiquitous has become the worship of money, and those who make most of it, that the old ideal of public service is close to collapse.

In former times, many good and clever people made a conscious choice to adopt careers in which they would not earn a fortune, but where they felt they could make a worthwhile contribution and enjoy the regard of society.

In other words, they made sacrifices in order to serve. This was true of parsons, doctors, teachers, civil servants, service officers and indeed MPs.

Yet not long ago, I was dismayed when a brilliantly clever middle-aged teacher at a great school said to me ruefully: ‘My pupils assume I do this job because I couldn’t find anything that paid better.’

We have conditioned ourselves to a grotesquely exaggerated respect for wealth, and those who achieve it.

Britain’s public services and institutions were for centuries the envy of the world, not least because they were untarnished by the corruption endemic in the U.S., much of Europe and, of course, most of Africa and Asia.

I do not suggest that today Britain has become a very corrupt place: the rest of the world laughs at how cheaply one can buy a few British MPs and government officials. But the recent flood of scandals represents a wake-up call.

The public must feel assured that public servants, from Downing Street to the humblest beat copper, are working to serve the interests of the State, rather than being in it for what they themselves can make out of it.

The people who run and influence our society need to preserve their dignity and command our respect. Too many have recently done too much that diminishes these qualities. We shall all be the poorer if we cannot win them back.

Ends . . . .

A FINAL NOTE ON CORRUPTION . . . . . . .

I can't think why an article on corruption should link so naturally to the release of the latest crime figures, but it does!  (I like the word veniality better than corruption, thinking of senior police chiefs prostituting themselves seems highly amusing and appropriate).

The latest work of fantasy from the Home Office Crime In England & Wales 2010/11 can be reached by clicking the link.

This year, the Home Office madarins thought detections deserved a seperate publication, such is the wealth of fantasy contained within the document, it is deserving of a place alongside messrs Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson on bookshelves everywhere. The detections publication can be read here.

For those of you with a particular interest in the numbers, (or in need of a cure for insomnia) the data files can be downloaded by starting here, and clicking the links for what interests you.

Now that the crime fgures are finally released, and having had the opportunity to examine the bulk of the documents and datasets, very little has changed. Recorded crime is still being wickedly suppressed and detections perniciously and fallcaiously exaggerated. Strong stuff you might think . . .  Our latest analysis of crime and detections has taken many months to complete and exposes the facts behind the "Cooking of the crime and detection books". The arrival of this final piece of fiction from the Home Office will enable us to complete and publish the report on this site over the net few weeks.

CONTEMPT OF COPS - THE THIN END OF THE WEDGE.

Apparently, Scotland Yard has issued guidance to Officers instructing them not to arrest people who verbally abuse them in the streets, as the courts don’t convict them and the force may have to pay out compensation claims.

Reported in the Mail and the Telegraph today, Scotland Yard has issued a card to its officers, telling them to do nothing if they are subjected to a torrent of obscene abuse.
 
The card, which the police are told to keep on them, secreted behind their warrant badges, says: ‘The courts do not accept police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as ‘f**k, c**t, b*****ks, w*****s’.

For the non legal reader, the common legislation applied falls under section 5 of the Public Order Act, which states that a person is guilty of an offence under the act who:-

There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum [1988] Crim LR 848).http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNHA-05760.pdf



Although the existence of a person who is caused harassment alarm and distress must be proved, there is no requirement that they actually give evidence. In appropriate cases, the offence may be proved on a police officer's evidence alone.


Police officers are aware of the difficult balance to be struck in dealing with those whose behaviour may be perceived by some as exuberant high spirits but by others as disorderly. In such cases informal methods of disposal may be appropriate and effective; but if this approach fails and the disorderly conduct continues then criminal proceedings may be necessary.

Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened, and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening, abusive or insulting. It is not necessary to prove any feeling of insecurity in an apprehensive sense on the part of the member of the public (Chambers and Edwards v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896). The following types of conduct are examples, which may at least be capable of amounting to disorderly behaviour:

• causing a disturbance in a residential area or common part of a block of flats;
• persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by;
• perstering people waiting to catch public transport or otherwise waiting in a queue;
• rowdy behaviour in a street late at night which might alarm residents or passers-by, especially those who may be vulnerable, such as the elderly or members of an ethnic monority group;
• causing a disturbance in a shopping precinct or other area to which the public have access or might otherwise gather;
• bullying.

The Civil Actions Unit is a secretive body within the Metropolitan Police Authority, which handles legal claims brought against Scotland Yard.

More than 200 actions against the Met are settled every year – usually discreetly to avoid attracting negative publicity for the force – involving claims such as wrongful arrest, assault or discrimination. The unit is part of a chain of command headed by a detective chief superintendent who decides whether to defend an action or settle, and provides summaries of ongoing cases to the Metropolitan Police Authority on a weekly basis.

THANKFULLY, THE VAST MAJORITY OF RANK AND FILE POLICE OFFICERS ARE ENDOWED WITH MORE COMMON SENSE THAN THE TOTALLY RISK AVERSE CIVILA ACTIONS UNIT.

Here are a few examples of how common sense coppers responded to these headlines. 

Inspector Gadget 

"We totally ignore all this nonsense when it arrives in our inboxes, on plastic cards or those wretched e-learning packages. Senior Management know this, but they issue the instruction anyway to show they have ‘done something’ if the wheels come off later.

We know the law allows us to arrest abusive yobs and we know we have the legal power to use handcuffs if we think it is necessary. If any officer on my team is reluctant to stand firm in the face of the withering, violent and foul abuse we suffer every day from the public, I send them to CID. It’s that simple. The other officers on the team expect me to protect them by only allowing membership to those who can cope.

If police officers stopped arresting for offences simply on the basis that the Courts are failing to do anything about it once the defendant arrives there, we wouldn’t nick anyone for anything. We know the law, we know our powers of arrest and we understand who is a threat and who is not. Sometimes officers get it wrong, but we have tens of thousands of these kinds of interactions every day and almost all of them are dealt with satisfactorily".

And a few more . . .

What's next it's ok to assualt officers
Section 5 is so last summer
C**t is no longer a fou letterword
What a load of blks

THE THIN END OF THE WEDGE
 
"The thin end of the wedge is something small and seemingly unimportant that will lead to something much bigger and more serious".
 
Were it not for the common sense application of the law by rank and file officers, (many using Common Law Breach of The Peace powers to support their Section 5 arrests), the risk averse senior officers and departments within the service would render the working copper powerless, left only to tick boxes like their seniors. Thankfully, there are many committed officers who think like Inspector Gadget. 
 
One of the earliest artcles from these pages looked at "The Spoiled Generation" where psychologist Dr Aric Sigman explored the erosion of discipline, respect and civility in the youth of the UK and the negaive effect it is having on society. He suggests that children & young people’s rights must be curtailed and a firm hand is urgently needed if they are to be properly guided into adulthood.


http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/spoiled-younger-generation-is-spoiling.html

Dr Sigman accurately captures the growing sense of unease felt by a large percentage of the UK public. He said “Children of the spoilt generation are used to having their demands met by their parents and others in authority, and that in turn makes them unprepared for the realities of adult life. This has consequences in every area of society, from the classroom to the workplace, the streets to the criminal courts and rehabilitation clinics".

The police see the consequences of the "Spoiled Generation" every day on the streets of the UK.  Britain now has the highest rates of child depression, child-on-child murder, underage pregnancy, obesity, violent and anti-social behaviour and pre-teen alcoholism since records began. A 44% rise in assaults on police by children is surely a symptom of a much greater disease that will follow if not treated fast.

Respect for law and order and authority is fading rapidly as parents and schools fail in their duty to their children. The criminal justice system including the police are then just one of the groups of agencies that deal with the fall out. The empowering of children, however well intended, has served to undermine the authority of parents, teachers, police officers and other authority figures.

If the Government are to start the task of fixing our society, then surely there is no better place to start than here. By instilling some firm handed forgotten disciplines within the "spoiled sector" of our youth, there will at least be a glimmer of hope that the UK may once again be a pleasant place to live.

If it is down to politicians to start the ball rolling, we'll not hold our breath.

Plan to halve jail terms for guilty pleas scrapped

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8587607/Plan-to-halve-jail-terms-for-guilty-pleas-scrapped.html

David Cameron has ordered Kenneth Clarke to scrap plans to let criminals who plead guilty have their sentences halved.

By Andrew Porter, and Tom Whitehead

The Prime Minister will announce the move today at a news conference as he attempts to regain the Tories’ reputation for being tough on law and order.

Mr Clarke, the Justice Secretary, caused controversy by disclosing last month that all criminals, including rapists, would be eligible for a possible 50 per cent sentence discount for an early guilty plea.

 

After crisis talks with Mr Cameron, rapists were excluded from the plan. But after a weekend of wrangling, Mr Cameron will announce that no convicted criminal will be able to get their sentences halved in this way.

Under Labour there was the option of the sentence being cut by a third for a guilty plea. That is likely to stay in place as the revised sentencing Bill is unveiled.

But it raises questions about how the Ministry of Justice will raise the £120  million savings it has promised the Treasury. (Thin Blue Line comment: 11,500 foreign nationals serving custodial sentences costing the taxpayer £35,000 each. Deport 3,429 of them and save the £120 million.... simples).

It is also understood that Mr Cameron will include plans in the Bill for a mandatory jail term for some knife offenders. Those guilty of aggravated assault with a knife will get at least six months in jail.

As leader of the Opposition, Mr Cameron set out a plan which would see a presumption of an automatic jail term for anyone convicted of a knife offence.

Under today’s plans, thousands of violent foreign criminals will escape prosecution if they promise to return home.

Migrant offenders guilty of assault, including those who attack police officers, will be offered a conditional caution so long as they leave the country. It means they will avoid the courts and the risk of a prison term with effectively little more than a “slap on the wrist”. They could still be able to apply to return to Britain after two years.

Foreign fraudsters, thieves and those caught with cocaine or heroin will also be eligible for a conditional caution under the plans. The Bill will also contain plans to remove legal aid from squatters fighting eviction while immigrants appealing against refused visa renewals will no longer be publicly funded.

The Justice Bill will allow prosecutors to hand out conditional cautions to foreign offenders for offences including assault, assault on a police officer, possession of any drug, fraud, theft, handling stolen goods and stealing a car.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/20/ken-clarke-abandon-sentence-cuts

Ken Clarke forced to abandon 50% sentence cuts for guilty pleas

Outcry from Tory right and tabloid press leads to scrapping of plan despite support from Lib Dems

Patrick Wintour, Allegra Stratton and Alan Travis

The Guardian, Tuesday 21 June 2011

David Cameron has forced Kenneth Clarke to abandon all plans for 50% sentence discounts for early guilty pleas, after an outcry on the Tory right and in the tabloids.

Cameron will announce the change at a Downing Street press conference on Tuesday, when the Ministry of Justice publishes its justice bill containing proposals for tougher community sentences and the introduction of a payment-by-results system to reduce prisoner reoffending.

After an outcry, Cameron forced Clarke to withdraw plans for the discount for rapists. There had been speculation that Clarke would manage to keep 50% discounts for some lesser offences, but the justice secretary has lost that battle.

Cameron has decided that any reduction in sentences in return for early guilty pleas would undermine his broader commitment to bring sense to sentencing.

The current discount is a third, and an extension to 50% would have meant a big drop in the prison population. The decision will mean the Ministry of Justice has to find as much as £100m in extra savings over four years from elsewhere in its budget. Most will come from a further squeeze on probation.

The Treasury has said it is willing to see the justice ministry change the speed at which it finds savings. No official confirmation was available from Downing Street before a meeting of the cabinet on Tuesday and Cameron's press conference.

Number 10 argues that trust in the criminal justice system is so low that it would be unable to sell a cut in sentences in return for early guilty pleas. Cameron's advisers have told him his party is losing its grip on the law and order agenda.

The Liberal Democrat leadership, which had promised to side with Clarke, appeared to have accepted defeat. A Lib Dem source said the 50% discount was not a party policy: "We never said we would want to bring it in. We are not totally wedded to it, and it is not a big loss."

Clarke's original green paper proposal was expected to produce savings of £210m a year by reducing the demand for prison places by 6,000. Ministry of Justice officials estimated that this would cut the record 85,000 prison population in England and Wales by 3,000 by the time of the next general election.

Other proposals expected on Tuesday include removing the courts' option of remanding in custody defendants who are unlikely to receive a prison sentence. This would save 1,300 prison places a year. Other proposals include deporting more foreign prisoners (500 places), a new release test for those serving indeterminate sentences for public protection (300 to 600 places), and diverting mentally ill prisoners into community health treatment services (650 prison places).

Helen Goodman, the shadow justice minister, said: "Ken Clarke's plan is to send fewer people to prison and to put more people on community sentences. This cannot work when probation trusts are taking the lion's share of the Ministry of Justice's cuts. These cuts will mean that there will be fewer probation officers monitoring fewer offenders less often."

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said: "From frontline policing to sentencing, we have seen promises on law and order broken by this government, which has severely damaged public trust in the justice system." He added that when it came to protecting the public, punishing and reforming offenders, supporting victims and cutting crime, he feared that the government would "fail on every count".

The justice minister, Crispin Blunt, gave a broad hint last week that any need to find further savings in the Ministry of Justice budget as a result of changes to the sentencing package were likely to come from the courts and probation services.

Blunt told MPs that probation had so far been "quite significantly protected" from his department's 23% budget cuts.

The plans have provoked fierce opposition, particularly from the solicitors' organisation, the Law Society.
One initial recommendation was to withdraw legal aid in family cases, except those involving allegations of domestic violence. Critics warned that this would provide a perverse incentive to exaggerate grievances.
Des Hudson, the Law Society chief executive, said he feared that cuts to legal aid could be even deeper than the proposed £350m because less money may be saved by keeping people out of prison.

He said: "This means they will come to the budget with sharpened pencils. We will not stand by and see the most vulnerable left with no access to justice."

Comments

"The man is a fossil who is totally out of touch with both reality and the standards of the people who voted for him Camera on should sack him without delay and get someone who isn't suffering from senile dementia to do the job, that in itself is going to be a problem".

"Plan to halve jail terms for guilty pleas scrapped - Might this have something to do with it being a cr*p idea to start with?"

"Recent evidence on Radio 4 showed criminals who are put away on short sentences quickly reoffend - short sentences don't act as a deterrent". 

"Why did Ken "I'm a seasoned politician therefore I know everything" Clarke ever think the public would be happy with such a stupid idea?"

1. End the release after serving half of a sentence for good behaviour, and replace it with an increase in sentence for bad behaviour. Additionally, stop giving one third discounts for guilty pleas where the evidence against the person is overwhelming anyway.
2. Make them work. The should pay for their own keep. If they don't work they don't eat.
3. Get mobile phone signal blockers to stop them using smuggled in mobile phones. One of the easiest problems to solve.
4. Root out drugs

"We should stop trying to do justice on the cheap. Employ enough well trained prison guards to keep a system of discipline and pay them well. Stop turning a blind eye in order to pacify criminals. Make prison an unpleasant, strictly controlled environment into which no prisoner will want to return".

"There is NO justice in letting criminals off with any percentage of their sentence.
How long do they think the public and the police will put up with this kind of nonsense?
Why would any police officer put their life at risk when the criminal gets off?
Why would the public not take matters into their own hands when the criminal gets off?"

"Is Clarke the 'Justice' minister or just out to save money? Criminals free on the streets COST US BILLIONS and we'll pay for it either in personal attacks/murder/stolen property/insurance/fearing to participate in normal daily life or through taxes to keep these creeps where they belong - in jail".  

"Well done, Prime Minister".

"How stupid can you get - "if they promise to return home." Home is now Britain! Sure I'd take the bus to Tooting, or Southall, or even to Rochdale. If you want me to go further, like Algeria, Jamaica, or Rumania, then I'll need a lot of 'bus fare'. But, I'll be back, British benefits are too, too, good".

"NO DISCOUNTS OF ANY KIND - PRISON WORKS FOR THE LAW ABIDING!"

JAIL TERMS TO BE HALVED FOR GUILTY PLEAS - THE LATEST DISGRACEFUL BETRAYAL OF BRITISH JUSTICE

This cartoon will be a close reflection and sad indictment of the British Judicial system if the latest crackpot proposal from the Ministry of Justice is agreed.

Thousands of criminals who plead guilty will have their jail terms halved under government sentencing plans, although rapists and paedophiles are to be excluded.

The Ministry of Justice was forced to toughen up its plans after an outcry over initial proposals which indicated that all those pleading guilty could be considered for a 50 per cent reduction in their jail terms. David Cameron has already ordered Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, to rule out sentence reductions for rapists, and the Ministry of Justice has declared that paedophiles would also be barred from taking advantage of the new rules.


Downing Street is finalising the revised policy and the Prime Minister is expected to begin an offensive in the coming days to dispel accusations that the Coalition is soft on crime. But the guidance on sentencing is still likely to mean more criminals are able to escape with shorter jail terms. Back-bench Tories are urging Mr Cameron to show he is mindful of concerns about the party’s image on law and order by ruling out reduced sentences to all but a small number.

Thousands of serious criminals will be entitled to lower sentences if they plead guilty, with a discount of as much as 50 per cent instead of the current third.

The latest Ministry of Justice figures show that in December last year, of nearly 85,000 offenders in jail, 7,875 were serving sentences of 12 months or less. A total of 28,427 criminals had been handed sentences of less than four years in jail.

Figures released this week also show that the number of offenders being sent back to prison each year more than quadrupled last year from the number in 2000. More than 100,000 offenders, including killers, rapists and sex offenders, have been freed from jail only to be recalled after breaching the terms of their release over the past decade, the statistics disclose.

Last month, MoJ data indicated that criminals given longer jail terms were less likely to reoffend than those serving shorter sentences. According to the figures, only a third of offenders given sentences of two to four years go back to crime within a year. By contrast, 43 per cent of those jailed for one to two years go on to reoffend.

According to MOJ figures, 100,190 offenders were given immediate custodial sentences in 2009/10. Of these 70,366 were sentenced to 12 months or less, 23,153 received between 12 months and 4 years and 6,671 received 4 years or more.


Mr Clarke said in April that he favoured increased use of community punishment sentences, providing they are “more punitive, effective and organised”. The idea forms part of his strategy to cut reoffending and reduce the prison population by 3,500 by 2015 from 85,224.

However, Mr Clarke's position looked uncertain earlier this month as the Prime Minister retreated on plans to halve sentences for offenders pleading guilty following an outcry over cutting terms for rapists and violent offenders.


Let us remind ourselves of extracts from the Conservative Manifesto on crime. 

Prisons with a purpose :  In the last three years, 80,000 criminals have been released early from prison because the Labour Government failed to build enough places. We are determined that early release will not be introduced again, so we will redevelop the prison estate and increase capacity as necessary to stop it. Under Labour, the number of foreign criminals in our prisons has more than doubled. We will extend early deportation of foreign national prisoners to reduce further the pressure on our prison population.

Many people feel that sentencing in Britain is dishonest and misleading. So we will introduce a system where the courts can specify minimum and maximum sentences for certain offenders. These prisoners will only be able to leave jail after their minimum sentence is served by having earned their release, not simply by right.

To ensure that we have adequate space to house offenders, our plans for renewal of the prison estate will increase capacity by 5,000 places above Labour’s plans. (Perhaps someone should remind Ken Clarke of this Manifesto item!).


We will scrap Labour’s disastrous policy of early release, and introduce honesty in sentencing. (And we'll replace it with an equally disasterous plan to halve prison sentences for guilty pleas instead!)


Offenders will receive minimum and maximum sentences; there will be no possibility of parole before the minimum has been served, and release before the maximum point will be conditional on the prisoner’s behaviour and progress in prison. (Which all seems somewhat meaningless if pleading guilty halves the sentence!).


The End of Custody Licence scheme is designed to make amends for Labour’s failure to build enough prison places. It led to more than 6,500 violent criminals being released back onto the streets – and at least 665 crimes have allegedly been committed by offenders who should have still been in jail.


Nick Herbert, (then) Shadow Secretary of State for Justice:


"Labour is giving criminals a break. They are releasing thousands of prisoners early and planning to water down sentences. We need punishment that fits the crime, enough prison places to hold all those sentenced by the courts, and a new focus on reforming offenders."
(Hmmm.... and exactly how is the halving of sentences any better?"


A Conservative Government will:


• Scrap the early release scheme and build emergency prison places
• Introduce honesty in sentencing so that convicted criminals serve a minimum sentence handed down to them by the judge
• Ensure sufficient prison capacity to hold all those sentenced by the courts – and reform prison regimes to break the cycle of re-offending
• Double the sentencing powers of magistrates to 12 months and repeal any new restrictions on their ability to hand down suspended sentences

Justice? What Justice is served by halving sentences?

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality. By halving sentences, Lady Justice is forced to turn a blind eye to these basic principles, completely ignoring the popular views of the general public.


The public overwhelmingly supports tougher prison sentences for convicted criminals, a major poll has revealed. A report, commissioned by Lord Ashcroft, entitled ‘Crime, Punishment and the People’, is based on a poll of more than 2,000 members of the public, 1,000 victims of crime and 500 police officers.


More than eight out of ten of those surveyed said sentencing is too soft and seven in ten called for life in prison to be much harder for inmates.


In a major blow to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, they also rejected proposals to increase the use of community sentences. Eight out of ten see these as a ‘soft punishment’.


Those polled were also dismissive of attempts to rehabilitate offenders – a centrepiece of Mr Clarke’s proposals.


Six in ten said efforts to turn criminals’ lives around ended up ‘making excuses’ for their crimes and failed to punish them properly.


Lord Ashcroft says: ‘Most people already think the justice system does a bad job at dealing with offenders and preventing reoffending, precisely because it places too little emphasis on punishment and deterrence. The justice system must command the confidence of the public on whose behalf, and at whose expense, it operates. Such confidence is already sparse. Politically, the Conservative Party has the most to lose. A firm approach to law and order has been one of the few consistently positive aspects of the Tory brand.


‘The Conservatives should not need to burnish their law and order credentials, they just need to deliver on them.’


The poll reveals widespread support for short prison sentences, while just one in five said community sentences were a good way to stop re-offending.


Two thirds said prison life should be made harder to deter criminals from committing further crimes. Eighty one per cent said sentencing was ‘too lenient’ while just 2 per cent said it was too harsh.


One anonymous contributor to a focus group, quoted in the report, said of prison life: ‘It’s really cushy. They have TVs in their rooms, PlayStations, a pool table, a big social room where they go and sit.


Worryingly, more than 40 per cent of victims who did not report their crime to the police said they thought no action would be taken.


More than a third said they thought the matter would be ‘too trivial’ for the police.


'For the lowlife who do the burgling and mug old ladies, life in prison is better than life outside'


Mr Clarke has promised a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ to turn offenders away from crime.


Asked whether prison works, just 42 per cent of those polled said that it did. But 69 per cent said the answer was to make life in jail harder.


The Independent had this to say:


Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke wants to keep prison for the most serious offenders and cut the number of jail terms under 12 months as part of a "rehabilitation revolution" which would result in thousands of offenders avoiding jail.


A report, by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Governors' Association, said the experiences of prisoners and staff showed "the potential deterrent effect of serving a short prison sentence is lost" for repeat offenders.


Blair Gibbs, head of crime and justice at the Policy Exchange think-tank, said: "This flawed campaign to discredit short sentences ignores the views of magistrates and crime victims who know that short prison terms are sometimes the only option.


"Short prison sentences may not do enough to rehabilitate or even deter serial offenders but that is not a reason to scrap them.


"They do work to prevent crime and give communities some much-needed respite and they certainly work better than most community sentences where a third are not even completed.


"Courts need the option to use short sentences and the big problem that needs fixing is the weak and ineffective community sentences that do not protect the public or stop crime."


A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "All sentences must punish offenders effectively as well as address the causes of their offending. Prisons need to be places of hard work, not idleness, and both prison and non-custodial sentences need to do much more to address the serious underlying causes of crime such as drug addiction and mental health. The consultation on our proposals for achieving this has closed and we will be publishing our plans shortly."


What about your manifesto promises on crime Prime Minister?

 COMMENT


Mr Cameron, in your pre election manifesto, you promised to develop the prison estate and increase prison capacity by 5,000 yet Ken Clarke proposes to reduce capacity by 3,500 with his hair-brained ideas.


You promised to scrap the Labour early release scheme, yet here you are proposing a scheme that will deliver even worse consequences for our communities, releasing recidivist criminals back into our midst serving only a fraction of the sentences imposed.


You promised to introduce honesty in sentencing so that convicted criminals serve a minimum sentence handed down to them by the judge. Please explain how proposals to discount sentences for guilty pleas can possibly achieve this.


You criticised Labour for releasing thousands of prisoners early and watering down sentences. Nick Herbert said "We need punishment that fits the crime, enough prison places to hold all those sentenced by the courts". Where are those promises now??


Exactly how will releasing guilty pleading burglars, car thieves and violent offenders after serving only half their sentences support Theresa May and the police in their bid to reduce
crime?


Implementing these proposals will hammer a further nail in the coffin of British justice. Career criminals are already laughing at the system that protects them more than the victim. These proposals, if implemented, will turn that laughter into hysterics.


Judges and magistrates complain bitterly that they are hamstrung by sentencing guidelines that prevent them imposing sentences that adequately fit the crime. It has become a rarity to see minimum sentences dished out let alone maximum penalties that the voting public would advocate. Now you propose halving any sentences actually imposed, rendering our justic system a complete laughing stock in the eyes of the criminal fratenrnity.


Releasing thousands of offenders after having served only half a sentence send out completely the wrong signal - that crime pays after all. How can you justify the threat to police officers pay and conditions when you will knowingly be making their job to protect our communities that much more dfficult?  How can you justify the taxes we pay towards our policing and justice whilst simultaneously encouraging the doubtless non tax paying, benefit claiming, criminals in society to remain on their path of lawlessness?


If ever there was a barmy ill thought out idea that will surely damage our society, it is this one.