At the Southwark Crown Court last night I took part in a mock trial exercise for trainee policemen (you wouldn't want an officer to be giving evidence for the first time in a real case, any more than you want a surgeon's first incision to be on a real patient). One of the officers with whom I spoke told me that 80% of her cohort of trainees were once PCSOs, and it was through their involvement in that role that they were recruited to the Force.
Not a bad bit of anecdotal support for PCSOs, is it?
I mean, people usually say that they'd rather have a "proper copper" - and that's fair enough; I think that -viewing the question in abstract - even most PCSOs would entirely agree. But my experience last night suggests that, having had an involvement with the Force and a view of what the job entails, a significant number of PCSOs become "proper coppers".
When they were first introduced, I used to go in for the standard anti-PCSO line myself. I had a glancing involvement a couple of years back with a case in which a PCSO performed a bona fide act of heroism in the course of his duties, which rather changed my mind. But furthermore, I'm not convinced any longer that they're such a bad idea in more general terms.
People say that they're providing policing "on the cheap". Well, they are - but isn't that a good thing? I mean, I know that their powers are very limited etcetera - but they provide a visible and reassuring sign of the presence of law enforcement, which is exactly what most people say they want from policing. As our police force finds itself so tied up with bureaucracy etcetera, playing more of a "station house" policing role in which they respond to pre-existing problems rather than providing a deterrent effect through patrols and visible presence, the PCSO fills the gap. You can say, "fix the problem with the Force" which is of course fair enough, but whilst the problem exists the PCSO helps answer it.
Furthermore, they have to put themselves in exactly the kind of danger that Constables face on patrol - indeed, because they really only patrol, they're in more danger given the greater frequency of said patrols. They expose themselves to that risk for much less pay, and whilst being subjected to frequent jeers and abuse from the public to whom they seek to provide a valuable service.
And, as I said at the outset, they are being recruited in greater numbers now into the Constabulary, providing a regular supply of recruits who have been tested through service in one way already, and who know what they're getting into.
Being a police officer takes 30 weeks of training and 2 years of a probationary period, and that's after preliminary training and college etcetera. That's not for everyone. The PCSO role allows an avenue for service for people for whom that's not a suitable route.
And we have many more people out there on the streets looking out for law and order. (Indeed, the "one PCSO, one PC" method of patrolling seems to have provided the best of both worlds.) Weighing it all up, and I freely agree that I've not really provided the other side of the argument here (feel free to do so in the comments), I find that - against my initial inclinations - I'm in favour of the PCSO role.
What do you think?
