Flat Out

“I pay your wages.”

“Just do your job.”

“She stole a packet of chewing gum – you need to arrest her!”

Just who do these people think they are, giving us orders? Please bear with me – I want to get something off my chest.

I'm beginning to feel as if people assume police constables are either dishonest or lazy, but does anybody realise how hard the LPM is pushing officers?

Sir Bernard's Local Policing Model has achieved a remarkable magic trick – spectacularly reducing resources and forcing officers to be Jacks-of-all-trades, now that Sir Bernard has closed the supporting departments. We've always been strapped, but the inefficiency has become absurd.

Last week one of my friends in the Metropolitan Police Service – lets call him Graham – worked flat out from 1pm to 11pm dealing with minor crime, neighbour disputes and mopping up the paperwork and endless work returns. His only 'meal break' was the usual Subway sandwich at the keyboard.

At 11.15pm, about to go off duty, Graham and a colleague found a young Asian man with an abdominal stab wound. They gave him first aid, potentially saving his life, then accompanied him to hospital in an ambulance. Graham knew he wouldn't be going home that night.

In hospital the lad was resentful and uncooperative, refusing to give details of the stabbing, yet maintaining that he wanted Graham to investigate the incident.

“Look bruv, I been stabbed, innit!”

At 2am the lad was stitched and discharged. Nevertheless, he told the doctor:

“I'm staying here tonight, yeah?” as if the ICU ward is a free hotel.

When Graham pointed out the twenty pound note in his pocket and suggested he take a taxi home the lad became aggressive and demanding.

“I didn't ask to be brought here – you gotta take me home innit.”

Graham explained that he had no vehicle and would himself have to make his own way back to the police station.

At 4am Graham had been on duty fifteen hours and was back in the station creating the crime report. He found the young man's police record: twenty-seven pages of convictions and arrests including sexual assaults, assault on police, carrying weapons and drugs, robbery and burglary.

At 5am Graham finished the report and adopted a sleep-like state on an impromptu bed of coats on the floor. At 7am, stinking of body odour and with a headache and stiff back, he tidied up the coats and continued his paperwork.

He booked the lad's bloodied clothes into the store at another station and delivered the paperwork to the detectives' office.

By 2pm he had consumed nothing over the previous twenty hours except biscuits and a gallon of coffee. About to eat, he was instead sent to a shop where a customer had exposed his genitals. Graham finished statements and paperwork at 6pm, viewed the CCTV – noting the cameras and times when the man's penis was visible, then finally went off duty.

It emerged that the young man has a history of slashing himself to gain sympathy and attention - Munchausen Syndrome - and that's what he did this time. He wasted twenty hours of Graham's time, not to mention a bed in the Intensive Care Unit and hours of surgeons' and detectives' time.

He deserves time in court for making a false allegation, but that won't happen because he will be considered vulnerable and mentally-ill.

When Graham finally boarded his train home he had worked twenty-seven of the previous twenty-nine hours and felt ill.

Let get this straight – police constables work hard.

Concerned About Dying on Duty? No Problem

The Chancellor's concession to emergency services – freedom from inheritance tax should you die on duty – is I suppose some sort of recognition, but frankly it's laughable. This will cost the Inland Revenue almost nothing because, in absolute numbers, so few of us are killed on duty. It's pure politicising, and badly done.

The Independent : 2014 key budget announcements

I can only speak for myself, and certainly not for firemen or soldiers, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts.

I doubt people realise that Metropolitan Police officers are more often killed whilst travelling home after a long shift while on duty. Let me explain.

Few of us can afford to live in London and live fifty or more miles away, so inevitably we have a hundred-mile round trip or longer each day. Constables are sometimes given a mandatory requirement to start work at a time when no trains are available - 4am during the Notting Hill Carnival for example - and the officers' only choice is therefore to drive to work. When we go off duty after perhaps a twenty hour shift we must then drive/ride home.

Needless to say, officers fall asleep behind the wheel and are killed. I've had two colleagues die in this way, and have myself struggled to stay awake on numerous occasions. I once suffered a minor collision, following several days of sleep-deprivation.

My point is that driving home would not be 'on duty'. If the government recognises that policing involves a chance of dying, perhaps they should bother to look more closely at the causes of death?

Having said all this, let's remember that those working in the police, armed forces, fire and ambulance services are all more likely to be killed at work than those earning their living through normal jobs.

The government has accepted every proposal to cut officers' pay and pensions, without any consideration of our welfare. Our pension contributions are by far the highest in the public sector and the pay has dropped considerably in real terms. We're expected to roll around on the pavement fighting people until we are 65. Yes, the police must do their bit, but we've taken more of the burden than any other sector.

And the reason for this?

We can't strike.

The government can treat us any way they want and there's literally nothing we can do. Even Employment Law doesn't apply to police officers. We aren't 'employees' but 'officers of the court' – a clever little trick that means we can be used and abused with impunity.

Constables' work load has increased significantly over the last few years because the managers – who do not 'manage' but simply panic about performance indicators – are terrified of criticism, so introduce yet another redundant layer of accountability almost every week. Are more criminals being caught? No. Are police officers jumping through hoops and ticking boxes more than ever? Yes.

Let's be clear – this inheritance tax change is no more than a sop to give cops and soldiers a little pat on the head. It benefits us after we're dead, and only if our estates exceed the nil rate band - how many cops have an estate exceeding 325k?

It will be interesting to observe whether, after this change is implemented, the Inland Revenue will argue and incur a proliferation of test cases examining what is meant by 'on duty'.

Sorry for the morbidity, and please be clear I have no political axe to grind – I dislike each party equally. But Mr Osborne...please don't insult us.

As Many As You Can!

The Mirror: Police officers ordered to do fifteen stop-searches each month or face disciplinary action

This article by Justin Penrose makes some good points. However despite Sir Bernard's claim that stop-search is driven by intelligence, my sergeant tells me each week:

“Get as many stop-searches as you can.”

And her favourite opinion is:

“I don't believe in stop-and-account. If you have grounds to talk to someone, then you have enough grounds to search them.”

I also enjoyed the MPS spokesman's assertion:

“The Metropolitan Police Service has no policy of setting individual targets for stop and search or for arrests.”

That might be true of the official policy, however most inspectors and sergeants relish imposing their own arbitrary targets – Targets not sanctioned by Sir Bernard or Theresa May.
Imagine I said to my inspector:

“Guv, I have no detections or arrests this month, but I'm working on a very complicated fraud that will take six months to bring to court. The victim is very happy with my work.”

His response would be:

“Why are you getting tied up with grief like that? You have failed to hit your targets. I'm putting you on a disciplinary.”

So it is in my best interest to deal with the easiest crimes first. Police officers, like all employees, are pressured by their bosses into hitting targets, but constables despise targets - we want to be free to catch the bad guys, but instead we're forced to jump through hoops.

Let's consider:
1. The Home Secretary removed targets two years ago, and made that order explicit at the Superintendents Association conference in 2013.
2. Sir Bernard has told officers to stop-search fewer people

Great! Our top bosses have realised that targets do not result in a better service to the public, so why are constables still threatened with disciplinary action if we don't bring in the figures? Two reasons:

(A)
The current generation of police managers knows only one management methodology – demanding performance figures from subordinates, then delivering those upwards to their managers. For example each inspector thinks:

“Thank goodness my sergeants have hit this month's targets. All the nasty emails I wrote have worked. I'll pass these figures up to the Chief Inspector. I'm safe for another month, and I've kept her safe too.”

(B)
Police culture has a deeply ingrained lack of trust:

“Keep a record of everything you do, just in case somebody asks you.”

That mantra is constantly reinforced. Every manager is scared of being asked to justify their role:  

“What have you done this month?”

But this could be solved by developing a culture of greater trust - trusting and respecting subordinates - and this change in attitude would have to begin with the Commissioner then gradually percolate downwards.

Ten Minutes

The Local Policing Model: is it working?

After discussions with LPM colleagues I understand the following: the key to the LPM is that since Sir Bernard closed most of the front counters the officers have to go out to people's homes. People can't report at stations, but have to phone up and request an appointment. These are put into a daily diary - one slot per hour.

It's 9.30am and an old lady, who was burgled the day before, finally gets a visit. She's sobbing her heart out in front of the officer, who is trying to ignore the Control Room calling him:

"Are you aware of your ten o'clock appointment? Hello? Hello? Are you aware of your ten o'clock?"

The Control Room then calls the officer's sergeant, who asks the officer to explain why he ignored his radio. Within the hour allocated to each appointment, the officer must travel to the victim from the previous appointment, or police station, take details and give victim care. The regulations dictate that the officer must then record that crime asap, therefore she goes back to the station to create the crime report. The officer is not allowed to accumulate reports during the day to save travelling time. If the officer is late for any appointments he is threatened with disciplinary action, however - it is inevitable that appointments are late or missed. Strangely, even if the officer is early for an appointment that also counts as one missed

Taking into account travelling time, each person gets about ten minutes of the officer's time.

Squandered Opportunity

The oath I swore to the Queen made mention of prosecuting offenders and preserving her Royal Highness' peace, but precious little about the Met's performance indicators.

So why is it that we, the police, still have targets?

Metropolitan Police Service senior officers like to push unfeasible targets on to the MPS rank-and-file to justify their next promotions – Cut crime by 20%!

What do such targets achieve? Police can only mop up after crime, not magically reduce it, so these targets can't possibly be met. Senior managers know this, but their bosses – the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners on so forth – still expect them to be achieved. So the senior managers take the only action they can: they order everybody to cook the books, and this has continued for decades. So let's get rid of these pesky targets. They achieve nothing and turn caring coppers into headless chickens running around chasing arrests and detections.

This isn't as impossible as it sounds. Few people seem to realise that the Commissioner is about to squander a once-in-a-career opportunity. Let me explain.

In 2013 Theresa May bravely ordered police chiefs to scrap targets, however police chiefs have ignored her instruction. Quite rude of them I hope you'll agree. Similarly, Tom Winsor has made it clear in his reports that he has little time for targets, and Chief Superintendent Curtis, president of the Superintendents' Association of England & Wales has also expressed the same view.

She said “...targets lead to increased audit and compliance work and dysfunctional behaviour. There is an urgent need to develop a more trusting management culture in the service.”
So, can we start to sense a consistent signal?

Oddly, a Chief Inspector on my borough recently took it upon himself to impose his own arrest and detection targets. Perhaps, like many of the cooks in the kitchen he feels he knows better than the Home Secretary? More likely, he is simply ignorant of the views of the Great and the Good. Unfortunately, he is very typical of police managers.

I've thought long and hard about this, and it seems clear we will be eternally stuck with targets because the present generation of police chiefs have no experience of managing without them. They rely on them. It's been decades since there were any real leaders in the police - they no longer know how, and simply stick with what they know. The opportunity that coppers thought would never come – no longer being slaves to the figures – has been granted - but the bosses haven't even noticed.

From the point of view of a police manager the great thing about targets is that they allow one to avoid actually managing - creatively solving problems or making decisions. You can get away with simply passing your own targets on to the staff, or sub-managers, beneath you. This is what Mrs May meant when she told the Superintendents that targets are “...an excuse for lazy management.”

What neither the Home Secretary nor anybody else appears to have realised is that the target culture suits our C21st Metropolitan Police Service managers. They might lack the capacity for creative thinking and courage of real leaders, but these qualities are no longer needed: appropriately interpreted performance figures can easily 'prove' a manager's performance. She can then receive that pat on the head from her boss, and hope for her next promotion.

What this means is that we're stuck with targets unless the Home Secretary and Commissioner start forcing senior officers to eradicate them. And that can only happen if managers at all levels have the courage to make a leap of faith.

So come on managers - let's stop being scared, and embrace a new era of policing! Sigh...who am I kidding? This opportunity is going to sail on past, unnoticed, and the farce will continue.

I should probably include more humour in my blog posts, but it tends to be occluded by the sheer amount of fact to be communicated. With this in mind, perhaps all my points ultimately revolve around one theme – a view of our management expressed succinctly by one of my constable colleagues:

“No matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd.”

As if by Magic...It's Gone!!

BBC News: Crime stats - the truth is out there
BBC News: Crime in England and Wales down 10%

Interesting crime figures. Nowadays the majority of BBC journalism is disappointingly tendentious. Nevertheless, these articles give the figures for 2006-2012:

Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) - 17% fall in crime.
Police statistics - 33% fall.

Personally, I doubt crime has changed at all - up or down. Nevertheless, it's a rather suspicious divergence - presided over by Commissioners Blair, Stephenson and Hogan-Howe.

As for the lowest estimated crime since 1981, don't make me chuckle. It's all in the way they're (not) recorded. I am a constable in the Metropolitan Police Service and when I report a crime such as a burglary, for example, I often find the offence later changed without my intervention. A burglary mysteriously transmutes, as if by alchemy, into a theft and a criminal damage. A street robbery changes as if by magic into a 'snatch theft'. The logic behind this process: burglaries and robberies are graded as more serious than theft or criminal damage.

Sometimes a crime even turns into a 'crime-related incident' – a non-crime!

And there are other tricks:

If a victim decides they no longer support police action, the case will fold and it counts as an 'undetected crime'. To expunge this black mark on the books, constables are ordered to take a 'no-crime statement' from the victim. This amounts to saying, “I'm sorry I phoned the police. It was a false allegation.” The crime can then be taken off the system, as if it never happened.

One has to admire the creativity of the people who think up these schemes.

I must emphasize that constables find all this extremely distasteful but our hands are tied. We receive email instructions from MPS senior officers. For example:

“Robberies are too high. DO NOT create a robbery report without first liaising with the Robbery Squad DS.”

The principle here is that the Robbery Squad Detective Sergeant is expected to find creative ways to reduce her robbery figures. She is under pressure to persuade the victim that his robbery never happened. OR, click a button on the crime-reporting system to transform a crime into a non-crime.

Met constables are disgusted by these practices. Many of us have been telling everyone who will listen about this for decades - I'm fed up of banging my drum about it. So why has this only just come to light?

Tom Winsor and others are subtly hinting that the constables are responsible. Mr Winsor, please try to understand that police senior managers rule with iron fists and in the Met at least, they have it all sewn up. They cannot bear dissent, and absolutely cannot bear light being shone upon their venality and incompetence.

It's only the senior officers who are strongly motivated to do this. They have a lot to lose – acquiring more crowns and braid on their smoothly pumiced shoulders, and a better pension, depends on them showing that their teams have hit their targets. Those of us without stripes, pips or crown on our rather tired and rounded shoulders are simply trying to pay our mortgages and get through each day safely and without having to explain the lack of resources too many times to frustrated members of the public.

Whistleblowers

Just a quick post today. PC James Patrick is a brave man. He is risking his job and pension, and believe me - the senior management of the Metropolitan Police Service absolutely cannot bear criticism.

It will be interesting whether in the end he keeps his job/pension, or perhaps the Met will settle out of court? And if this ends in his favour, will the floodgates open? Will officers like myself then be able to reveal our identities and start exposing the disgraceful and dim-witted management? I hope so. Goodness know, the whole edifice of Met senior management needs prying open. In fact the whole culture within the UK police - attitudes of the bosses towards the officers, and towards the public - needs transforming into something decent and humane.

One more thing - I have noticed that wherever the newspapers discuss PC Patrick recently, they seem compelled after his name to add '...currently under disciplinary proceedings..' as if to imply he might be under-performing/dishonest/negligent. However as far as I know he is only on a disciplinary because he's had the guts to speak out, and the organisation simply cannot have that. The papers seem to be using him to attack the Met, but simultaneously they seek to undermine him . Why are these papers always so filled with hate? But that's another question - one I don't wish to go into today.