The blue lamp gutters

Kevyn Bodman

Right again, Melanie.
Thank you.

Verity

I don't agree. MP writes: "And other American mayors with useless or even corrupt values and ideas have merely produced American police forces in their own image."

Only in cities that don't have an elected police chief. Cities that don't have an elected police chief or fire chief, and who also endure a corrupt Democratic mayor are not that plentiful. We should not conflate the two posts.

An elected police chief has a mandate from the people and he also has a budget. In my experience, at the next election, if the police chief in situ complained that the mayor had not backed him,it would be the mayor who went; not the police chief.

Alcuin

For most of this country's existence, it was run by people who knew their history, who knew that if a system was working, you had to have a damned good reason to change it.

Part of the damage the Wilson and Blair administrations did to this country was to think that anything could be tinkered with and would continue to function as efficiently as it ever did. This country's unwritten constitution only works when its frailties are fully understood. It is quite clear that today's full time career politicians (of all parties), as opposed to yesterday's experienced professionals, do not so understand.

Frank Pulley

These are very wise words from a journalist who understands the history of policing in this country and who has consistently produced the best reports and essays on the undermining of the police service countrywide and, in particular, the London Metropolitan experience. Melanie has faithfully recorded, with great aplomb, the destruction of the morale of what was once the best police force in the world. Her research has been assiduous, her insights often based on personal experience. Her sources are (mostly) impeccable. Her first class mind cuts, like an acetylene burner through tinfoil, through the deceit, obfuscation and political interference that has diluted, politically polluted and demoralised the once proud and fiercely independent Peace Keepers of the Monarch, Her observations are always presented on the plain and clarifying background of feet-on-the-ground common sense. It is deeply ironic that while Melanie’s expertise and power of analysis are confined to a tabloid newspaper and a few other publications including this Magazine; while at the same time a third class mind with no experience or insight holds the office of Home Secretary - supposedly because the latter will do as she is told by a deeply flawed Prime Minister with no mandate from the electorate. Would that Melanie's and Smudger's roles were reversed. We could then sit back and watch the sparks fly at the Home Office until it was ‘fit for purpose’. At the same time we could confront the flimsy rhetoric of a woman who thinks that the best way to punish the perpetrators of knife crime is to give them a guided tour of the wards to indulge themselves in voyeurism of their baleful and baneful violence. A message to David Cameron: make Melanie an offer she can’t refuse! If you win the next election, you will need her. I know she has given you a rough ride at times, but you asked for it: take heed. Now do yourself a favour and get her inside the tent projecting out.

raymond joseph douglas

-
Some interesting thoughts Melanie.I have to say,we in this country do have a tendency to see changes in structures as a way to solve problems,rather than tackle the problem itself.Or even just to build on existing structures,and make those srtuctures better rather than tear the whole thing down and start again!I see this in education policy over the last fifty years,or even transport ploicy.

cuffleyburgers

Ms Phillips is partly right (although her harrnaging style is better suited to the Mail than this Organ), in that a change of culture can't be achieved overnight, but the idea of police chiefs being accountable to the people whose lives are affected by their activities is a good one, and certainly preferable to command and control from Whitehall; Command and control failed in the USSR, it's failed here with education, the NHS and with Policing.

Local accountability is the nearest thing we can get to a market based solution so is likely to be the best. And it will permit the finding of different solutions to specific problems, the best of which can then be adopted more widely.

There is no perfect solution but a lot of little problems being solved at a local level by the people affected is certainly preferable to a vast morass of failure.

Ian C

It's not just the culture and trade craft of policing that is broken. It is anything that the state runs that is broken.

This is not a new phenomenon, but one that has become obvious for all to see in the past 11 years, if it was not already apparent under the Major administration.

The reason that the state is so inefficient is because there is inadequate inbuilt renewal within the political and civil administartion system. So we get stuck with relatively few people who dominate the scene for too long and their acolytes come and go unseen and without influence. So unless a long server is especially effective in his particular role eg the Home Office then nothing happens but muddle and confusion. Hence where we are today on policing and so many other aspects of government.

How we get to build in this renewal to our political governance is a valid debate. I would argue that more elected posts - with absolute total time limits for how long they can serve would be a step in the right direction, if far from being a perfect solution.

Barry Larking

More even than a loss of nerve this idea conforms to the larger embrace of a loss of a national identity which has been fostered by academics, media and politicians for more than forty years. The notion that the local police authority must be the tool of 'local interests' to engineer outcomes nominated by local representatives is an invitation to chaos.

What if there is opposition to the introduction of principles to local law enforcement which stem from religious convictions rather than those sanctioned by English Common Law?

Why devolve these powers at all? It appears that a transfer of authority is a bargain made by those desperate for popularity.

Verity

I have lived in a state that has elected police chiefs, sherrifs and fire chiefs.

It works.

They work for the voters, not the criminals. In other words, they dance with the one wot brung them.

Mike

Many aspects have led to the decline in policing. One aspect which I think needs to be considered is that historically many Police officers used to box and or play rugby to high standard. Others had served in the Armed Forces. Consequently many Police Officers were very tough and fit which gave them confidence to deal with potentially violent situations in an appropriate manner - neither over or under react.
If someone is scared in violent situation they tend to over or under react and this includes Police Officers. If a fit and tough Police Officer can diffuse the tension with a joke yet remain calm and cool plus insinuate with their body language that should violence start they will be able to deal with it, trouble can often be prevented. The recent case in Croydon of 30 youths attacking two police officers because they asked a girl to pick up litter she had dropped show many troublemakers do not respect the Police's ability to cope with violence. The Police Officers had to call for back up. Jaquie Smith stated that Police should respond within 15 minutes. I doubt that in areas of high crime any response time of greater than 5 minutes will be a deterrence. This means fit and tough bobbies walking the beat. Smash and grab raids are based upon the premise that criminals can enter a building and steal sufficient goods before the Police can arrive and arrest them. If a response time of 15 minutes is used by the Police then if the criminals walk quickly at 4.5 miles /hr they could be 1.2 miles away within this time. If they run at 6 miles /hr( not difficult) then the criminals could be 1.5 miles away. A distance of 1.5 miles equates to circle with an area of 7 square miles. If the Police were capable of a 5 minute response, then a criminal may only be 0.5 mile away which would produce a search area of 0.8 square miles. Area of circle =radius square x Pi( 3.14). The Police Officer who walked the beat should know the likely suspects and where they live in an area of 0.8 sq miles. In addition, Police Officers who walked the beat should know which garages dealt with stolen cars, in which pubs stolen goods were fenced or where drug dealing took place. If the Police had local knowledge from walking the beat for 2 years at least and operated 5 minute response times, probably much crime would be reduced.

Verity

These days, with everyone taller, there should be a minimum height of 6' for officers.

They should never have put women on the beat, or those little tiny inadequates who are easily intimidated. On the beat there should be pairs of men of similar height, made taller and more authoritative by the policeman's helmet.

Who the hell is going to be wary of someone of 5'8" wearing a baseball cap, for God's sake?

thomas

You seem to have cited the success of a police chief in New York as a reason why the Tories' policy on mayors is wrong.

This came after starting your article talking about elected police chiefs.

Is your example supposed to show that the Tory policy on elected police chiefs is wrong? It doesn't do this at all.

The police force IS politicised, like it or not. They profess concern for ethnic minorites, women and their recruitment efforts to be more important to them than fighting crime. This is because they are accountable only to other politicians and quangocrats, not to ordinary people. Once they become accountable to us again, we being the people who rely upon them for our safety, the police will be forced to start getting bodies on the streets and forced to answer our calls for assistance or protection - if they don't their boss will be out of a job. It's a fantastic policy.

I suspect your hostility is hidden behind your talk of extremists. Is it not the case that you worry that Muslim areas will start to elect people who eforce certain laws and don't enforce others? Is it Sharia you are afraid of? If so, please say it up front as it is an important issue. Personally I can't see a radical-supporting policeman being elected if the constituency is large enough - all of our cities should be free of this problem.

Verity

Thomas, I think there is some conflation here between American elected police chiefs and appointed police chief.

In New York City, the police chief is appointed by the mayor. So although the police chief did a totally admirable job, he was answerable to the mayor, not the electorate. Fortunately, the mayor picked the right man.

I would still prefer that the police chief be elected by the voters. And the fire chief. Then he is directly beholden to them for his job and it is them, not the mayor, he has to please.

Admittedly,Britain has allowed its government to manipulate it into have Muslim ghettoes. These need to be broken up,but we cannot forego the idea of elected police chiefs just because a bunch of "community leaders" turn the screws on mayors. The mayor needs to report them and the police chief needs to order them arrested for intimidation.

Frank Pulley

Verity

“They [elected police chiefs] work for the voters, not the criminals.”

What happens when most of the voters are criminals? J

It is difficult to make comparisons between the US police and the UK police. During the prime of my life I was lucky enough to be given a large budget to study US crime and policing (it is of course essential to study both as they are symbiotic) at Federal, State and local level and found both fascinating similarities and differences. Jurisdiction is one of the major problems, given the multi-layered systems of policing and the variations between States. It is just not possible to generalise about the practise or the professionalism of policing in either the US or the UK. The curate’s egg applies to each. Sometimes the elected Police Chief in the US does a good job, but it does depend a great deal on the type of community involved. Some locally elected police chiefs were utterly corrupt and as a result Organised Crime and their political associates ran the show. ‘Turf disputes’ between the Federal agencies, State Police, City Police forces; and intra-Federal agency squabbles can be depressingly debilitating. Strangely, throughout the US there existed a very high regard for Scotland Yard, even though to be frank (in lower case) I found the best of the US law enforcement agencies superior to even the Metropolitan Police here. In the best of the US LEA’s I found the standards of education and professionalism much higher than in the UK.

One thing that shouldn’t, and in my opinion mustn’t, occur is factional community interest calling the shots in this country. The law of the land must apply equally to all – regardless of … (you know the list) and the general tenets of policing must be nationwide concomitant with the law. The proposition that the punters should prioritise policing is ludicrous. It would be a recipe for disaster in the UK and in fact is already happening to some degree: interference by politicians and other busybodies from the world of criminology and sociology is one of the major problems. I don’t have to repeat my contempt for the CPS as you have heard that ad nauseum in all its variations. Policing should be both resourced and prioritised according need and with the primary object of preventing and detecting crime; bringing offenders to justice when crime is committed maintaining public order and tranquillity. HM Police for the Metropolis and County Constabularies were once fiercely independent and, other than minor interface with the government through the auspices of the Home Secretary, operated with professionalism, discretion and great skill. Now they are buffeted from pillar to post. The police constables on the street or in the area cars (responding to 999 calls) were once the bastions against crime and public disorder. They were crucial to the police function, as the ‘first officer on the scene’ always is. Their conditions of service, criteria for recruitment, and street powers and discretion have been diluted beyond recognition and there lies the problem. This was a deliberate ploy by the Gramscian mechanics behind the scenes. Unfortunately it was made easy for them by the venality of a cabal of venal senior officers at Scotland Yard who took the dollar of Organized Crime through the coffers of the Pornography and Casino industries, after laws were changed in the 1960s to accommodate both. The reputation was damaged and in his effort to clean up the Met. Robert Mark threw the baby out with the bathwater, unfortunately. Since then Sheehey, Scarman, and others have had their way with policing in the UK and replaced the independent Queen’s Peace Officers of high rank with a liberal output from socialist academia who have overweening ambition and very little else in their kitbag, which makes them the prey of any two-bit politicians of either central or local government. Even the manifestly stupid current Home Secretary and her McDumpty sidekick can have their way with them. Eight years of Ken Livingstone’s hand on the tiller didn’t help either. It took over a hundred and thirty years (1829 – 1959) for the Met to establish its reputation as an exemplary police force. It enjoyed another ten years of effective policing. Since then it has been mainly retrograde with some notable exceptions.

The clock can’t be turned back, obviously. But as I said in my earlier comment on this thread, Melanie’s analysis is sound and someone should take it aboard as a guide to what should be attempted if the Tories do regain power in the next couple of years or so. If they don’t, it won’t matter much anyway as we will accelerate down the abyss at such a rate most people with a grain of sense will emigrate; as I’m too old now I shall re-establish, in any greybeard years I have left, the Iceni tribe and declare UDI for East Anglia!

Dennis

Time was when police chiefs were men of real substance.

Take Lord Byng. He commanded the Third Army at the breakthrough at Cambrai in 1917. After WW1 he became Governor General of Canada. Only then was he thought ready to take on the onerous responsibilities of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1928.

What a contrast with the incumbent.

When police forces were run by retired Major Generals (and most of them were) they worked very well. We should try it again.

Boris should lobby for General Barney White-Spunner. If he can tame Basra, Stockwell will be a doddle.

W. Smith

Ian C gets my vote on this one. Excellent post.

I found Verity's comments persuasive, too --- although I rather felt my heart go out to "those little tiny inadequates who are easily intimidated". Still, I do agree it's clearly preferable to have plods who can handle themselves.

As for Melanie's aversion to the idea of locally elected sheriffs, I imagine she may see problems arising in areas where the voters are strongly Islamic or strongly pro-BNP. I have qualms too, but don't think them sufficient to reject the idea of local police accountability: provided the rule of law obtains (another issue which badly needs addressing), the scope for populist abuses is limited. Piloting the scheme first and then reviewing it periodically should limit this scope further.

One problem the scheme can't address is that catching crooks is only half of the picture: there needs to be reform of the Criminal Justice System and of prison regimes as well, if we are to see a sustainable reduction in crime levels.

Roy

Many good posts on this one. Not requiring me to disturb the waters. Frank Pulley gives an excellent overall summing up of the police scene and of Melanie's experience and possible involvement! An ask that we could say; would be too much for our wildest dreams. But like dreams we have for the betterment of the nation, not to be entirely dismissed.

Hysteria

re the possible BNP elected police boss - surely anyone putting themselves up for election would have to come from the ranks of the already senior police cadre - we are not talking about electing any member of the public - are we?

Gary Miller

Ms Phillips is an eloquent writer who lays bare the truth in its clearest terms. She should be the next prime minister Of either main party. Thank you.

Geoff Miller

You can guarantee that it will be black and other minority ethnic groups who take control in our cities.

Fortunately I live in France.

I will watch with interest, and some amusement, as you pile up your own funeral pyre.

Will the British ever take their country back?

I doubt it.

Neil Saunders

Frank Pulley and others have provided the detail.

The big picture is this, however: political correctness, in ALL its manifestations, needs to be ruthlessly extirpated from all of our institutions. (This will mean a purge and complete reorganisation.)

It is political correctness that values airy notions such as "equality" (however mischievously defined, divisive and harmful) over the straightforward need for operational efficiency. Hence the recrutiment of midgets of either sex, signalling their authority in baseball caps while picking their apologetic way through our streets to the immense mirth not only of hardened criminals, but of ill-disciplined schoolchildren (and the despair of the rest of us).

Frank Pulley

This idea of ‘accountability’ through ‘elected’ police chiefs in the UK is wrong headed. In that way police chiefs become politicians (even more so than what has already developed in recent years) and the rank and file then become subject to the whims of politics - and party politics to boot. The police are already accountable to the public. They are funded by a combination of the council tax and central taxation; they are subject to the law of the land, police regulations and enforceable discipline codes. They have a duty to serve all members of the public without fear or favour. They are (or perhaps I should say were) trained to a high standard of competence before they are (were) allowed to carry out their duties and obligations and serve a period of two years probationary service before they are confirmed as fully-fledged constables. Thereafter they are subject to written and oral examinations if they wish to be promoted and when they reach higher ranks have to face selection boards for further promotion. As with all other professions, a combination of talent and experience should ensure that police chiefs who reach key positions are qualified to lead and guide others; to deal with complaints should their subordinates fail to live up to the standards the public are entitled to expect. Moreover, police officers must be apolitical to discharge their duties objectively. Their duty is to enforce the law of the land and the law of the land is where the political interface should begin and end. The public have their say through their parliamentary representatives – their MPs - and through the law enacted by parliament and reviewed by the upper house. There are Police Authorities that appoint Chief Constables who are answerable to them. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies oversees the whole shebang. Ultimately the Home Secretary is responsible for the police and Security Services and must coordinate the interaction between them through the relevant committees. The Crown Prosecution Service, the Magistrates and the Judiciary oversee any prosecution that emerges from police investigation. How would electing police chiefs improve any of that? It would just lead to more confusion, more corruption than has already been experienced and lead to less efficient policing. Corruption is the ever-present danger in the interface between Organized Crime and the Police. Add a political dimension to the choice of police chiefs and the risk increases exponentially. Of course there will be a call for more public accountability when the police aren’t functioning efficiently, but it is a slippery slope that can only ultimately benefit the crime barons, particularly those within the minority communities who already exercise far more influence than is warranted by their numbers and the behaviour of cabals with those communities. As usual I endorse Neil Saunders, whose succinct comment is spot on.

Verity

Frank P, I have, as you know, the greatest regard for your opinions, and I always read every word you have written, without skipping.

I also acknowledge that you have the background of having studied American law enforcment on the ground, as a professional yourself. You make a good argument for not electing police chiefs. And certainly, in places like Chicago, which promotes louche and criminal behaviour in public service and policians (viz St Obama), the will of the electorate is secondary to the party machine.

First, someone above noted that inadequates could stand for office, but they cannot (except as independents, and how could they afford it?). The party has to endorse them. Meaning, these people (in most places) are already known to the party through community service. Political parties don't run inexperienced or weak people (except in the case of the above-mentioned saint). They run experienced cops who have shown an ability to lead and to administrate.

I have written about my experience of living in a large Texas city before, but it might be appropriate to repeat it here, to afford the commentariat a chance to compare and contrast.

Around 1 a.m., I was awakened by someone at my bedroom window. I wasn't imagining it because my cat was alerted, too. I called the police and went and waited in the living room. Four minutes later a patrol car rolled up. They checked the back yard, but obviously,even a deeply stupid malfeasant doesnt stick around when a patrol car with flashing lights squeals to a stop.

After having determined that he wasn't in the yard any more, one of the two officers said, "Where do you keep your gun?" I indicated the bedside table. "Best keep it out on top of the table for tonight." They left, saying, "If he comes back, call us again."

Well, he did, and I did. Four minutes later again, a police car rolled up, this time with four officers, two of them armed with rifles.

Again, the fellow had slipped over a wall and vanished. This time an officer said, "Remember, shoot to kill. Don't shoot to wound." And another officer added, "And just make sure both his feet are over the threshhold before you call us.

"And if he comes back, do not hesitate to call us again. It's our job."

By now, needless to say, I was a nervous wreck. I was scared to put the gun down, just in case this fellow came bursting through the window.

Anyway, clearly, he was getting a thrill from the drama, because he did indeed come creeping back. Again, I called the police. Again, four officers responded plus - get this - a low flying helicopter with a brilliant light, which hovered over my backyard.

Again, the fellow had slipped off, although I am sure he was watching from somewhere, and it was too dark, even with the helicopter to look for footprints.

However, by then I was such a nervous wreck I could barely dial the number of a friend who I asked to come and get me.

I have a feeling the police may have had an idea who it was and went and had a little discussion with him because he never turned up again.

Anyway, I cannot imagine this level of service in Britain. But a police chief who is elected is under 24 hour a day pressure to deliver.

I would be interested in your countervailing arguments, Frank.

mckenzie

Speaking of the BNP, does anyone know exactly what their policy on this would be?

Frank Pulley

Enjoyed your anecdote, a very interesting insight into your life as well as the m.o. of the Texas local prowl cars. I wouldn’t mind betting that the officers who arrived had outlived several bosses and done the same job despite them, rather than with their assistance.

What the general public often don’t understand is that the boys (and gals) on the front line are the essence of the police function. Pundits worry too much about the chiefs and don’t give sufficient credit to the ability and discretion of the grunts. Good people on the ground at the sharp end are far more important in policing than the administrative layers above them as far as the public is concerned when help is needed. Obviously they need to be carefully recruited, vetted, trained, encouraged, led and supervised. But they should also be trusted to get on with the job and allowed a broad measure of discretion.

If public interface is with the chiefs, then usually the guys on the ground are not doing the Job. One question the anecdote begs is: did the officers feel the perpetrators collar eventually? Did they bring in the SOCOs? Negative? Then it’s a story of a lady on her own with a cat (and a gat) getting tlc from the boys in blue (or khaki – whatever) and quite right, too, there’s nothing wrong with that, but there was a time when you would get similar service from front line officers answering 999 calls in London (and the rest of the UK I guess). I’m sure it still happens in pockets, but that basic service has been decimated in the UK and the administrative strata has become the be all and end all of policing. Moreover the politics of it has become paramount, it seems, in the eyes of politicians, which is why I shrink from horror at suggestions of ‘elected’ police chiefs.

It is pertinent to stress, and I make no apology for repeating it, the importance of getting the right calibre of mature, physically capable, authoritative, articulate, nousy rather than mousy officers to spend a reasonable period of their service doing the front line job, as foot soldiers, emergency response-car crews, detectives on the ground and accepting the public queries and requests for assistance at the front desks of police stations. Staying on one manor long enough to learn something of the people inhabiting it or raping it is also very important. Local knowledge is essential.

I found front line cops to be much the same wherever I went – the UK, the US (from sea to shining sea) and continental Europe. The culture may be different, but good men (and women) who volunteer as guardians of the community and have integrity, courage, determination and experience is what makes policing work anywhere. If you don’t get the basic ingredients right, all the bullshit in the world will not improve things. Nor will asking the public to choose the police chiefs. In any good Force they should rise to the top through effort, not be grafted on. There might be a case for it if a force is rotten beyond recall (but remember that rampant corruption is gravity fed – it stops at the first layer of straight supervision if it’s seeping upwards). I could bore you into eternity on this one, but I’ve hogged this thread too much already. My apologies, but the rage and impotence of having to watch the deterioration of London’s finest in my dotage is a cruel fate. And the item in the DM today about the Commissioner and a Mr Miller didn’t improve my temper either, given the subject matter of this thread.

George Steiner

When the subject is the Jews or Israel to which you can contribute nothing but irrelevent oppinion, there are over a hundred postings of varied insignificance. But when it is a subject vitally imporant to you such as this, there are but 25 or so.

I believe Ms. Phillips is wrong not to support the idea of elected police chiefs. Evidently it is all right to elect MPs and Mayors, but not police chiefs. She is showing herself to be a typical European elite. The people can't be trusted.

God forbid say some of you that there may be a black or even a Muslim police chief. If an elected black or Muslim police chief does not deliver, the voters will toss him. It is false to hold the blacks or Muslims don't want to live in peace and quiet, have safe streets and no knife crime.

I have learned a long ago that liberal European intellectuals, a clan to which I used to belong, are on the whole full of it. They may discourse eloquently on all kind of ezoteria but commonsense they possess only in minuscule quantities.

Ordinary shmucks on the other hand have a lot of common sense and decency. Comes in handy when casting a vote.

Your situation concerning the police and policing is catastrophic. But electing police chiefs is a concrete solution to a concrete problem.

Don't divert your attention to mush like culture and tradecraft as Ms. Phillips suggests.

Verity

George Steiner - and you're a liberal, thoughtful Jew who believes Muslims should given a fair go because all they want is a decent run at the job.

Did I mention that I'm Marie of Rumania?

Frank Pulley

George Steiner

The public vote in politicians -see what we got? Let that be a lesson to you. Obviously to you 'democracy' is a matter of life and death. Policing is much more important than thaaa-rr-tt (to paraphrase Bill Shankly, it's an immutable element in the Great Scheme of Things.

Mind you, your method would solve Tariq Ghaffur's problem. He issued an ultimatum to Sir Ian Blair on the lines of : "Gimme you job, or I'll sue you." No doubt he would piss it if he put himself up for election in Londonistan.

Verity
"Maria of Rumania?"

An there was me thinking that you were really Sweet Caroline.
(some bits of my memory cells are still intact):-)

Ian C

I have had some more time to study the debate here and can easily conclude, being infavour of more overall local accountabilty, that electing police chiefs is of itself not a solution. Indeed the last line of my previous post should have said such a development is far from being a 'total solution', implying that it could be a part.

As Frank has said there are very real difficulties in the UK to elected police chiefs (apart from the pros and cons learnt from the US) because, for example we have Devon & Cornwall Police, and there is no other elective body associated with these two counties - and so on. States and County and Town limits in the US are alot simpler organised for historical reasons while our administrative networks are complicated by their historical roots.

But there is much to gained by local political leaders e.g County Council, Large Town, Cities, who can be elected and rejected providing their powers match their responsibilties. In London's case it seems that the power of the Mayor has in some cases been too large and in others too limited. So the vision has got to be got right and the design of local accountability very carefully implemented.

The overriding problem is, it seeems to me, that so much of daily life has become over politicised because government interferes in so many ways that individuals just stand back because there is some state paid salaried busy body ready to read out of the rule books, mostly via an own job/department preserving version of the Health & Safety manual, who just make you want to go home having hit them over the head with a ton of granite.

The ultimnate solution is for a clear definition of what the State does and does not do. For a clear standard and cost range for it be done and if the national and local representatives on that body do not deliver the standards within the costs allocated for them to be removed. To give the politicians discretion over what the state does is the problem, exacerbated by their ability to bleed us all dry while they experiment with what they want the state to do. We want it to do the minimum because it is crowding out society and we are breeding an "I don't give a F**k world" because of it. I don't need to point to the evidence for this.

Verity

Frank Pulley - I didn't get the Sweet Caroline reference. Marie of Rumania is a reference to Dorothy Parker.

Verity

Who appoints police chiefs in Britain? It seems to me you've had some real doozies, including Ian Blair.

I do not, these days, trust any government entity in Britain to work for the betterment of the contributing citizen. That's why I think the citizens should choose their own law enforcement chiefs.

This government is corrupt and its toxins have entered the tiniest blood vessels of British society, which has turned into a country of little Hitlers against the citizenry. A little Hitler who told pensioners to take baskets of plastic flowers from the hallways of their council flats - that had been a feature for years - because they were a fire hazard. (So is his brain. It's sere enough to catch fire from a light bulb.) A park attendant who wanted a father arrested for taking photos of his own children playing the park. Garbage collectors reporting on contents of dustbins, for God's sake. The country is full of such head lice.

That's why people have to elect their own law enforcement officers. It's the only way they can take the reins back into their own hands.

Frank Pulley

Tell you what - let's get back to basics: frankpledge, the forerunner of the constabulary duty!

See: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Frankpledge

It would work in my hick town retreat, away from the hoohah of multi-culti mayhem. And as country folk are dis-associating themselves more and more from the metropolitan menagerie, not least because of the cost of travel of any kind, a whole new way of life could evolve. Abandon the hell-hole and let 'em get on with it!
Bugger Dr Johnson (and his namesake at the Gherkin): "He who is tired of London, has got the message!"

Verity

'Maria of Bulgaria'.

I was just pulling your leg and reminding you of your previous dual persona from 5 or 6 years back. Sorry, all part of the incipient dementia (I prefixed 'sweet' and no irony intended, honestly).

Verity

Frank, it's Dorothy Parker and it's Marie of Romania!

Still, a copper's memory! I think I did post as Caroline ... Perhaps four years ago ...

I've posted above that the government of Britain is now so corrupt that anything that can be taken out of their hands should be so taken. Policing is one of their main weapons against the citizenry.

Frank Pulley

Verity

"...the government of Britain is now so corrupt that anything that can be taken out of their hands should be so taken. Policing is one of their main weapons against the citizenry."

That is a very powerful argument. Certainly it seems that many chief officers of police are now thoroughly in thrall to leftist politics, having cravenly forfeited their traditional independence and apolitical professionalism. Forgive me if I persist in believing that a change of government just could restore that independence and reputation of the British police for effective law enforcement. I know the signs are not good as the Gramsci moles seem to have reached Eton, too, judging by some of phraseology emitting from the Cameroons, but I have to go on hoping that they are appealing to the deserters of NuLab in a vote-catching exercise and subterfuge; that they will restore some traditional conservatism and patriotism if they get into power. It would be nice to see the pendulum swinging back a bit before I pop my clogs. So belay this Top-Cops-canvassing-on-the stump malarky pro tem, gal, as I want to outlive a notorious West London 'community leader' who once promised to pee on my grave. Not that I would wish to return the compliment as it might put out the fires of hell that will surely consume his scheming, villainous bones.

btw ... Virginia Woolf/Marie Antoinette of Ruritania .. yeh, yeh - I geddit! Stop peeing on my little quips ... as the Bishop said to the actor!

GW

As deeply as I agree with MP on most things, this one I am in complete disagreement. The argument is an indictment of the democratic process. People need to be trusted to make their own choices, even bad ones on occasion. If they make a poor choice, they can correct it at the next election.

The knock on the U.S. for creating corrupt police forces is just ridiculous. If you have any facts showing a lesser degree of corruption in the British police than the American over any significant period of time, then show it.

Further, just because there are elections does not mean that everything gets turned over and the central govt. gets to wash their hands. There are still minimum standards of qualification and there is still legal oversight. If there is corruption, it will get ferreted out whether the police official was put there the all knowing central government or elected by the locals.

Local control is not a panacea - but centralized control seems not to be either. Both come with their own sets of problems. Here is a good rule of thumb in a democracy. If it is a local matter - the locals need to be trusted to decide for themselves whether you think you can make a better decision by fiat or not.

Frank Pulley

GW

"The knock on the U.S. for creating corrupt police forces is just ridiculous. If you have any facts showing a lesser degree of corruption in the British police than the American over any significant period of time, then show it."

Well ... I am fully aware that corruption is ever present in police of all countries; it's inevitable: the interface between crooked business and enforcement seeps at times (both ways as trade offs are implemented, I might add). But if you think the Met., even at its worst period was anywhere in the same league as the major cities of the US, you are just plain wrong and the difference is the unholy alliance between, politicians, organised crime moguls and the police across all layers of policing that exist in the States. And I can produce evidence: if you haven't seen it, take a look at this TV documentary series:

"http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crime-Inc-True-Story-Mafia/dp/B00006L9WJ

It was ground breaking at the time (early 80s), though many copycats have followed. You'll find my name among the credits and the evidence adduced from the horses' mouths on both sides of the divide should convince you that criminal lobbying for placement of elected officials is deeply insidious. If it doesn't, then we're wasting our time here and I pass. The Goodfellas got at least one President elected (and probably more) never mind your average local police chief.

What I would also like you to consider is that the largest body of police officers, who are not bent, suffer more from the corruption within their ranks than any other section of the public. They are obstructed in their duties and have to carry vicariously the besmirching of the general reputation of the police by the small minority of their bent counterparts, who exploits get major coverage when they inevitably fall, while much of the good work goes unreported.

The police after WW2 were blessed with a major input of mature military personnel returning from the war, to join or rejoin those who policed the streets of England for the duration - some of who saw as much 'war service' in the blitz of Britain's cities as those on the front line. Many who had held quite high commissioned ranks in the armed services were happy to serve as PCs, Sergeants and Inspectors at the sharp end of policing and remain there throughout their service. These were the body of people who gave the police a reputation for authoritative, fair and effective policing. The baton was passed on up until the 80s, but by then politics and tinkering with the law, regulations, and conditions of service was beginning to dilute the stock, then the CPS (deeply politicised) was formed. It has been all downhill since. We need to replenish the stock of HM constabulary from somewhere and more servicemen returning from the current conflicts would be a great start, rather than trawling the Universities for wet-behind-the ears graduates with second class sociology/criminology degrees and accelerating their promotion. There are two many of those in local and central government already, why pollute the police function with them?

Verity

Frank P - I know nothing of Virginia Woolf and have never read a word she wrote. She looked like such a drip.

Here is the reference from the somewhat zippier Dorothy Parker:

"Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song
"A medley of extemporanea.
"And love is a thing that can never go wrong
"And I am Marie of Roumania."

OK, I won't mention elected police chiefs again, and I hope you get to attend that pisser's funeral and have a good laugh.

Verity

Frank P - Why don't you come over to Fraser's The Welfare Perestroika on the Coffee House.

W.Smith

"Certainly it seems that many chief officers of police are now thoroughly in thrall to leftist politics, having cravenly forfeited their traditional independence and apolitical professionalism."

...So why not at least give the public the option of booting them out? Election may not be your cup of tea, but surely ejection of useless Marxoid placemen (you can no doubt think of a slew of examples) would weed out the more egregious rubbish?

...Come to think of it, why not apply that to all public servants? If they don't actually serve the public, then let the public give them the heave-ho --- a sort-of democratic bum's rush.

A spot of Athenian-style οστρακισμός could get rid of much of the lying drek that ends up in power these days. Would our Prime Minister be so brazenly duplicitous and contemptuous of the public will if he knew we could dump him at a moment's notice should he push us too far?

Verity

Well, W Smith, I think you are confusing elections with referenda. Elections for city government are held at given periods of time, not when the people say, "Oh, we're fed up with you."

And, in fact, the British are better placed to get rid of ticks than the Americans, who have to wait until the end of a four-year term. At least our Opposition can call for a vote of no confidence.

That said, I can understand why Frank Pulley is attracted to the British way of appointing chiefs of police. It worked well when he was a copper.

My argument is that it has become corrupt, like so much in British public life, and I'd rather see people like Ian Blair removed at the will of the voters.

In the US - I hate to keep quoting the United States, but it is undeniably a country with checks and balances that work well, but even the county treasurer is elected. If the voters in the county don't like the way he has handled their money, he's out at the next election. Amazing how motivating this turns out to be.

The school boards are elected, for heavens' sakes! And those schoolboards are answerable to the local parents, who keep an eagle eye on them.

W.Smith

Well, W Smith, I think you are confusing elections with referenda.

Well I didn't make it terribly clear, but that was why I said "at least": if Mr Pulley won't countenance public election of officials, then at least let the public have the power to kick out egregious failures. I do know my election from my referendum, though re-reading my spiel, I should probably have emphasised my point more. Apologies for the confusion.

Elections for city government are held at given periods of time, not when the people say, "Oh, we're fed up with you."

But elections just *don't work* over here: they haven't for years --- look at government, national, regional, local. We've had elections galore, but fail consistently to end up with the leaders and public servants who can do the job. Ostracism would at least allow us to ditch the very worst, persistent failures without having to wait years until the next election and in the meantime watch the fools create yet more havoc --- especially when much of this damage is extremely tough to undo (particularly in the case of social and cultural changes). It's difficult to convey the frustration that ordinary British people feel with the public administration and its leadership. I certainly don't believe that if the public had recourse to the ostrakon we would now have this reanimated corpse leading our country. ...And we wouldn't've signed the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty: given the way we feel about Europe, no PM would have dared --- they'd know they'd run the risk of being dumped. Of course referenda are not without their own problems, but we so desperately need some check on our ruling class --- and the culture is now so debased that change from within is highly unlikely.

There are so many in the public administration who are almost universally HATED over here, owing to their patent incompetence and/or clear contempt for the very people who pay them to serve. And before some bright spark says it, I will: obviously, I don't suggest that if 51% of the electorate don't much like the PM, then he's got to pack his bags --- but if seven times as many people want him out as want him in, then give them the opportunity of dropping the rogue and forcing an election.

My argument is that it has become corrupt, like so much in British public life, and I'd rather see people like Ian Blair removed at the will of the voters.

And I agree with you, Verity. Many serving officers will (in private) acknowledge the problem, although I've yet to hear any say a good word for elections, unfortunately. I recently spoke to a senior policeman attached to the Home Office who --- although he stated baldly that the police in Britain simply do not do their job these days --- raised exactly the same objections to elected sheriffs as Mr Pulley does. We just won't be allowed to vote in whomever we like --- our police chiefs will be selected and installed for us. But if crime's soaring in an area, then surely the people who live there should have the power to make a head or two roll amongst those they pay to police it? If, as the experts insist, they themselves must elect, then let us eject. The protection of property and person is one of the few legitimate duties of the state: the public should have as much say in this as possible, and should not have to put up with high-handed idiots who preen and play politics while the crime they're paid to tackle is rocketing.

Finally, I don't want to focus exclusively on the police: those in the force who do actually want to serve the public are up against a radical Leftist establishment which has spent decades destroying the Criminal Justice and penal systems in this country. Until that's fixed, there won't be much change --- even with locally elected police chiefs.

Verity

W Smith - points taken.

It didn't take Britain long to go down the plug'ole. You watched your liberties and ancient freedoms being drained away, and did nothing.

The newspapers were frightened to death of ex-alcoholic Alastair Campbell, who lives and has children with his "partner". A fine upstanding citizen indeed!

Ian C

Verity and W Smth, your conversation brings us to the bigger picture that is not yet being discussed but is almost on the tip of the nation's tongue, and that is "What do we want/need from government and what changes to the current system will bring that about?".

It is not about the police -alone. It is about all public service and what the taxpayer should fund versus what he is being told he must fund, without any seeming limit or effective sanctions, other than an inadequate electoral system.

Good debate.

David Raynes

Frank Pulley
It is a long time since the Met was "the best Police Force in the world". It was `seriously corrupt in the 70s, Robert Mark did his best and failed. Now we have a Commissioner who has presided, without shame, over the most monumental and unnecessary cock-up of operational policing, the deliberate shooting of an innocent man- AND kept his job. Law enforcement in the UK is in chaos and over expensive, there are 43 Police Forces in England Wales. By consent of the honest Chief Constables, serving and retired (and I have known plenty), that is about 39 too many for efficiency. Each one has a Chief Constables, car driver, exepnsive HQ buildings, personnel department, Head of CID, etc etc. There are ranks in layers with many promotees hardly staying long enough in each layer to become efficient. There is a dearth of professional detective and investigative ability. Fraud is hardly touched. Many Officers retire on fat pensions at the peak of their ability and at great public expense. This is grotesque nonsense to which even the Conservative party subscribes. Policing needs a massive shake up, the current government tried and failed, or rather gave up in the face of one of the strongest of lobby groups. On only one thing is Melanie right, the current proposal is not the answer.

Frank Pulley

David Raynes.

Not sure whether you are amplifying my posts, or disagreeing with me. You pick one phrase and quote it out of context, then make a series of assertions as though you are contradicting points I have made to the contrary, whereas in fact my comments on this thread (and on previous comments over the years) amount to more or less the same as what you have said yourself.

I would qualify your general point, though, that “It” (implying the whole of the Metropolitan Police) was ‘seriously corrupt’ in the 1970s. No! A small minority of officers, some with high rank from the Central Squads and in small cabals on some Divisions were ‘seriously’ corrupt in the 60s and early 70s when the wheel came off. They finished up in the pokey (prosecutions brought about by Met. Officers working under the aegis of Robert Mark who was brought in from ‘outside’ to sanitise the operation and act as a new broom sweeping clean). He would not have been able to do it without the assistance of Gilbert Kelland, John Smith, Jim Hay and many others, all Met. Officers of the highest integrity who were only too pleased to spearhead a clean-up of the egregious venality of a group of baleful drunks, on the take from Organised Crime, who disgraced the Met and obstructed colleagues who were trying to do the job the right way. Sir Robert (and his team) did not succeed in completely eradicating malpractice, nor will anyone else, ever. As I said in a previous comment, the interface between crime and the state is a thin blue line that leaks hither and thither and always will, human nature being what it is. Keeping it to a minimum is the trick – difficult to maintain over a long period of time.

I came across some Revenue Men who were corrupt also. Seriously corrupt! (all corruption is serious). But that didn’t lead me to believe that the whole of the senior enforcement agency in the country was ‘seriously corrupt’. In fact, in my time (cue Peter O’Toole) I liased with some of the best detectives I have ever had the privilege to work with who were members of the Customs and Excise Service (Special Investigations and VAT investigators officers) and they provided invaluable intelligence and assistance in the fight against OC. I have admired your own contribution to the fight against the drug cartels both here and abroad and your work since you retired. (I did a bit of acting too, but only when undercover)

As you know yourself, bad cops gravitate towards other bad cops. Good cops seek out each other too (on both sides of the Herring Pond). What I have tried to convey in my posts, is that the corrupt practices that took place in the sixties and seventies did not detract in general from policing on the streets by the boys (and girls) at the sharp end who maintained control of the streets and responded to emergencies and general crime with prompt, resourceful aplomb.

Traditional policing did work and worked well. It had a proud history (with some blotches over the decades), but until the Gramscian engineers moved in to tar every police officer in the UK with various brushes of ‘political incorrectness’, venality and brutality, we had -across the board - the most trusted and effective police force in the world and Hendon trained a great many foreign Chief of Police, too. Forgive me if I yearn for those days to return and a new government that will take some basic steps to restore the reputation of the Met. in particular and the entire Queen’s Constabulary in general. The CPS was not the answer, neutering the whole force because of the sins of a few was ludicrous and wicked. It has exacerbated the problem.
Mark is less remembered for slating the shyster lawyers who represented Organised Crime and manufactured their bent defence stories, nobbled juries, paid off Judges. I wonder why?

The debate here has been mainly about ‘elected’ Chiefs of Police. Whatever needs to be done to replenish the stock and regenerate morale, that ‘solution’ should be no part of it. Already politics is entrenched in the police function; imagine how worse it would be with top cops on the stump. Top cops are only as good as the guys who bring home the bacon. Usually those at the sharp end who have been through the mill and do their work despite the top cat, not because of him. I would have thought that watching Paddick performing as a manqué Mayor would have cured anyone of that wheeze of elected police chiefs. It would IMHO be retrograde in the extreme. But we already exhausted that above if you read back through the posts.

I hope you’re not allowing your recent spat with Melanie over the 42-day detention issue cloud your normally pristine objectivity, David. I disagree with her over that too, but wouldn’t dream of allowing a difference of opinion (for once) destroy my high regard for her work over the years. Your last paragraph damns her with faint praise and it is simply not fair. I remember her praising your efforts some time ago in during her various broadsides against the drugs barons. Why the rancour?