Cameron delights Right with police reforms

"Cameron In Clash With Right-Wing Over Police Reforms."

That mischievous headline appears in this morning's Independent but it could hardly be further from the truth.

David Cameron's consensual approach to education and NHS reform has disappointed reformist conservatives but the Tory leader's bold approach to the police service - largely untouched by Margaret Thatcher or Michael Howard - should be welcomed by the same people.   Those unthinking conservatives who don't like the way that David Cameron is standing up to big business probably won't like his police reforms either.  Such conservatives think that the Tory Party should always be on the side of big business, the police service, the army and other traditional sources of Tory support.  But conservatives should be the reliable champions of consumer interests - not producer interests...

David Cameron is standing up for the consumer and small businesses when he worries that big business can conspire against the public interest.  Conservatives shouldn't be the party of big business (remember how the CBI attacked Thatcher's reforms of the early 1980s?) but should be the champion of the little guy and of greater competition.  Many big businesses use regulation and other restrictive measures to frustrate emerging competitors.  Similarly conservatives shouldn't defend the police and its increasingly close relationship with the political establishment.  Conservatives should be the champion of the communities who aren't getting proper policing whilst officers' time is wasted on bureaucracy and political correctness.

A leader in this morning's Telegraph is suitably enthusiastic about Mr Cameron's police reforms - describing them as exhibiting a "welcome boldness".

Also enthusiastic is the think tank Reform.  Reform's former director is Nick Herbert MP - the new shadow minister for police reform.  Reform's verdict on their co-founder's new work?  Very positive:

"Today’s Conservative Party proposals for police reform are the basis of a radical agenda that would transform criminal justice in Britain.  The focus on accountability – as Reform has argued – is the key structural change required to trigger the development of beat-based and zero tolerance policing models that the public have long desired.  The effects of accountability on crime levels in England and Wales could be dramatic, as the record of American cities such as Boston and New York shows.  The Party’s 2005 Manifesto pledge to recruit an extra 40,000 police officers was not repeated, and may have been shelved.  If so, this new position – focusing on structures rather than more manpower – may represent a new focus on raising police productivity.  Today’s radical agenda contrasts starkly with the Party’s policies in the areas of health, education and the economy, where several recent announcements have left Conservative policy “almost indistinguishable” to that of the Government (see Reform bulletin, 13 January 2006)."

The same link provides an excellent summary of the party's police reform proposals.

Comments

[Adrian Owens]

This focus on police service reform is to be welcomed.

However, let's not forget the need to reform our court system as well. The Government have recognised that this isn't working and the average police officer is demoralised not only by the political correctness that has besotted his polcie superiors but also the court system inefficiency which delays and frustrates justice even when the police make one of their all too infrequent arrests.

[Tory T]

The absolute key to policing is local control. The reason why large parts of America have very low crime (yes, contrary to the prejudices Europeans hold, it's true) is because elected sheriffs and police commissioners are responsive to those who hire and fire them. In the UK ambitious policemen such up to the Home Office, ACPO and a few local officials.

The police are becoming more and more ridiculous. They have been demoralised by years of undermining attacks from radical criminologists and others on the left and are now far more comfortable attacking the left's targets (middle class motorists, have-a-go householders, non-PC loudmouths) than tackling real criminals.

I don't entirely blame street level cops (although they have internalised some of the left's agenda) because if they try to do the right thing they'll get either a metaphorical kicking from their PC-obsessed superiors or a real kicking from arrogant and cowardly thugs.

Better rough justice than no justice - which, sad to say, is what we've got is some parts of Britain today.

[James Hellyer]

Strangely the article fails to name any of them.

[Sean Fear]

I agree that there is much wrong with the police. It certainly should be easier to sack poor officers. But we need to start by sacking a large number of senior officers, who seem to see the police performing the same role in society as Mao's Red Guards, rather than cutting crime.

[True Blue]

That's just what the police needs. After years of increased red tape and interference from do-gooders, the first thing Cameron says about the police is that they should be easier to sack. They already get suspended at the drop of a hat when someone makes a malicious accusation. Has he forgotten how the police broke the miners' strike for us?

That the police were our greatest supporters? I also resent the implication that if I oppose the reform I must be unthinking.

The idea that elected officials should interfere in police work at a local level is madness - there is enough interference at the top without more politically motivated unqualified people. Can you imagine all the labour councillors taking over the police?

[James Hellyer]

"That the police were our greatest supporters? I also resent the implication that if I oppose the reform I must be unthinking."

I strongly suspect Cameron has chosen this one area for reform precisely because it's seen as a Conservative vested interest, and that battering them is acceptable in the eyes of the public.

[Selsdon Man]

The first cop I'd sack would be Sir Ian Blair. His handling of the Stockwell shooting and the aftermath was disgraceful.

[Selsdon Man]

May I point out that, in some US towns, policing is contracted to private companies. If they fail, they lose their contracts.

[Mark Fulford]

The police need incentives but if they are too great or too punitive, they become very dangerous. Private policing is a terrifying idea.

Reform should be all about this one question: how do you give policemen sufficient powers to do their job and, without overly obstructing them from doing their work, make sure they exercise those powers safely?

I’m worried that elected officials would not pay enough attention to “safely”. By contrast, current safeguards are too stringent and prevent the police from doing their job effectively. For example, The Times reports officers facing the sack for referring to villains as ‘pondlife’. This disciplinary action is totally out of proportion to the supposedly ‘inappropriate language’ that surely occurs in 99% of workplaces.

The balance on safeguards can be adjusted without radical reform which, frankly, I find no more comforting that the existing problems.

[True Blue]

The Times article shows that it's too easy to discipline police officers already, without adding extra powers to sack them.

Who would disagree that villains are pondlife? It's mild compared with what I'd call them in a private conversation. What are the police anyway, social workers? They should have a healthily negative attitude to criminals. Let the defence lawyers do the defending.

As for private policing, we have privately run jails and parking attendants, so why not contract out some police work, too? The private sector almost always brings superior results through market discipline and competition. Let them tender against the police using a results-driven approach. The private companies can attract the best officers through incentivised pay schemes and better terms. Some jobs such a bailiff work and some traffic management could easily be farmed out to the private sector. It would be better value and help us in our mission to shrink the public sector. It would relieve the burden on the police and let them concentrate on worse crimes.

[Graeme Archer]

The point is that under the reform proposals, we would vote out those police leaders who are either in hock to soft-left orthodoxy, or just useless, until we got ones that would do what "we" want, "we" being your local community. It's a fantastic idea, as dramatic a change to the producer-consumer relationship as that effected by privatisations in the 80s.

Why is it scary to imagine Labour councillors telling the cops what to do? If they were not delivering what their communities want, they'd be voted out. It would actually help us politically if these theoretical councillors were as nuts as you seem to be implying.

This isn't one of those lose-lose electoral battles for us, as it is with property taxes (we can't bring back poll tax, so Labour councils can fleece their tiny middle class constituents without fear of electoral reprisal). Crime affects everyone and everyone has a right to a voice in directing how it should be fought. There should be nowhere for ineffective police leaders to hide.

Hear, hear Selson Man re "Sir" Ian Blair. He is a disgrace to public office, a walking insult to Londoners, and it looks like he's doublethinking his way out of being held to account for what we all SAW with our own eyes: that he led us to believe the exact opposite of what actually happened in the sickening shooting of de Menezes in Stockwell. It would be a JOY to campaign to have him beaten in a London-wide election, or to campaign for the London leader who could have him sacked.

I wonder if rank and file police officers will welcome this reform too. They must have noticed how their public profile has sunk the closer their leaders have got to Blair.

[john Skinner]

I doubt whether the rank and file will welcome changes (hate the word "reform") Graeme. They will probably see this as more interference from politicians, coupled with more likelihood of the sack. Cameron should concentrate on persuading them that his proposed changes are designed to roll back the layers of bureaucracy that presently engulfs them.
Hopefully, a happier force will be persuaded to chase the right kind of targets. ( Low level criminals, rather than motorists. ) Ten arrests a year is pathetic. That South African cop in Nottingham (the one on the mountain bike)nicks more than that every week, if memory serves me right. Of course, it would help, when officers veture outside, if they would patrol singly, instead of strolling along in pairs looking into each other's eyes.

[Sean Fear]

I quite agree Graeme. I doubt if elected police commissioners would be doing things like buying green ribbons for their officers to wear, to show their solidarity with Islam after the 7/7 bombings.

[True Blue]

Some areas (like Lambeth) are so naturally left wing that any left wing candidate will win. There would have to be a very major scandal for a directly elected sheriff to be voted out. Reelection would be the primary goal, and long term thinking would be less likely.

Imagine if someone like Ken Livingston was running the met police. He's popular, and yet he is wasting public money on silly leftist projects.

[Mark Fulford]

"Imagine if someone like Ken Livingston was running the met police. He's popular, and yet he is wasting public money on silly leftist projects."

Never a truer word spoken, True Blue.

How about George Galloway? Would you trust the majority of Bethnal Green and Bow not to pick him as a local commissioner?

[James Hellyer]

Tne point is that if some area selected a lunatic fringe commissioner, and subsequently saw that area decline into lawlessness, while neighbouring areas prospered, it would provide them with a powerful incentive to vote him out.

[Mike Christie]

"Tne point is that if some area selected a lunatic fringe commissioner, and subsequently saw that area decline into lawlessness, while neighbouring areas prospered, it would provide them with a powerful incentive to vote him out."

So why do many poor boroughs repeatedly vote in left-wing councils who blow all their money on trendy projects?

[Tory T]

True Blue says "The idea that elected officials should interfere in police work at a local level is madness."

Utterly wrong. The police have to be - and are - accountable to someone. If people in Lambeth vote for soft policing and political correctness then they will reap the consequences. At the moment that's what we've got all over the UK - without ever voting for it!

Give local communities the chance to vote for decent, proportionate but tough policing and they will grab it with both hands.

If a crackdown comes from above it will always be denounced by leftists, bogus community leaders and media commentators as "oppression" but when the local people have voted for the crackdown the criminals are isolated and seen for what they are - parasites.

I'd love to stand as elected Police Commissioner for Lambeth - I bet I'd win...

[Tory T]

True Blue says "The idea that elected officials should interfere in police work at a local level is madness."

Utterly wrong. The police have to be - and are - accountable to someone. If people in Lambeth vote for soft policing and political correctness then they will reap the consequences. At the moment that's what we've got all over the UK - without ever voting for it!

Give local communities the chance to vote for decent, proportionate but tough policing and they will grab it with both hands.

If a crackdown comes from above it will always be denounced by leftists, bogus community leaders and media commentators as "oppression" but when the local people have voted for the crackdown the criminals are isolated and seen for what they are - parasites.

I'd love to stand as elected Police Commissioner for Lambeth - I bet I'd win...

[James Hellyer]

"So why do many poor boroughs repeatedly vote in left-wing councils who blow all their money on trendy projects?"

Because people aren't aware of what are the respective responsibilities of local and central government, and the funding of local councils is made opaque via central funding.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Steven Bloomfield, our portly ex-borough commander, spent more time being quoted and pictured in LibDem focuses and Labour Rose newsletters than being on the beat catching criminals! It seems to me that the police, certainly in the cities, are becoming increasingly political. Get burgled and wait for two days for a copper to turn up. Set up a gay, lesbian and transgender awareness group or a black residents' assn. and the police will bend over backwards to attend them. That's policing in London for you. BTW, I am gay, so I am not being homophobic!

[Sean Fear]

Sad but true, Justin. That's policing also in Nottinghamshire, Greater Manchester, North Wales (and I daresay a load of other places).

[True Blue]

"Tne point is that if some area selected a lunatic fringe commissioner, and subsequently saw that area decline into lawlessness, while neighbouring areas prospered, it would provide them with a powerful incentive to vote him out."

That simply does not happen to any great extent, or there'd be no loony lefty councils. Margaret Thatcher had to abolish the GLC because they kept electing Labour even though the council kept doing ridiculous things. Labour councils have much higher council tax on average, and yet people keep voting for them.

And the idea that the electorate needs to suffer under a left wing chief of police in order to better appreciate the right wing alternative is risible. I don't want to step across the border from one borough to another and have completely different policing policies.

[True Blue]

Adding tiers of elected representatives to chomp at the trough is Labour policy, and it's very unpopular. Drop this idea. I'm sure it'll never be party policy.

[Sean Fear]

While I supported getting rid of the GLC, I now think it was a mistake.

Firstly, if people elect a far Left council, then I think they need to learn from their mistakes, rather than be rescued from them.

Secondly, from a purely partisan point of view, the antics of the GLC (and places like Brent and Lambeth) did us enormous good in London in the general elections of 1983, 1987 and 1992.

Thirdly, we would have won back the GLC (and terminated Livingstone's career for good) - possibly in 2000, very likely in 2004.

The problem with centralised control of the police is the way a Labour government can imposed left wing priorities from above.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Good points, Sean. There are still loony councils operating in London - some, I am sad to report, are Conservative-run! Needless to say, they're the 'loony right' -run purely on ideological grounds - e.g. Bromley not allowing gay couples to use their buildings for celebrations after a civil union and Barnet for putting cars before people. These councillors mostly male, are of a certain age and can be found in polyester suits!

[James Hellyer]

"That simply does not happen to any great extent"

Because of the lack of transparency concerning council funding and powers.

"And the idea that the electorate needs to suffer under a left wing chief of police in order to better appreciate the right wing alternative is risible."

Or democratic. And as most of the population are right of centre on law and order issues (remember *that*
Today programme poll), it's unlikely that they'd vote in bleedding hearts.

[Sean Fear]

Bromley have (mostly) a good record, Justin. Barnet, however, are a disaster.

In response to True Blue's points, it's likely that several Labour London councils are going to get thrown out on May 4th.

[True Blue]

I said:
"That simply does not happen to any great extent"

James said:
"Because of the lack of transparency concerning council funding and powers."

If this is true (which I dispute), then you've stated a very good reason why we shouldn't introduce a new tier of elected representatives into the police. They are already interfered with by councils and central government. The buck will be passing so quickly that it it'll burn up.

If you are truely concerned that the police are following a left-wing agenda because the Labour government, then the answer is a Conservative goverment, not a mish-mash of tiny police regions each with policies reflective of the local politics.

[True Blue]

"In response to True Blue's points, it's likely that several Labour London councils are going to get thrown out on May 4th."

Let's hope.

[John Hustings]

Having grown up in an extremely pro-Labour area under the GLC, people liked Livingstone because they were under the impression that he would spend more money and employ more people. (I guess they'd be right about that.) But those same people would also be extremely hard-line on law-and-order issues.

The way I figure it, "ordinary people" are right-wing when it comes to virtually everything but economics. And the only reason they are left-wing about economics, is that they have not connected the dots and understood where the money that is being spent is coming from. They always think it's *other people's money* being spent. But when you live in an area (as I did) with high crime, you have nothing but contempt for those who give more concern to criminals rather than victims.

[William Norton]

True Blue: "I don't want to step across the border from one borough to another and have completely different policing policies."

Why not? To an extent, through the jury, you already have different convicting policies in different areas (there's enough anecdotal evidence about the variation in likelihood of going down for certain crimes in London boroughs; which I think has been backed up by a few studies.)

There's also a variation in the willingness of local authorities to take out ASBOs - in Camden they'll slap one on you if you sneeze; Tower Hamlets took years to even start.

If you believe in localism then you believe in a post code lottery.

The modern police structure basically dates from the 1964 Police Act, which created the modern large forces we have now. Before then there was much local variation. Each town had its own force run by a watch committee with operational (in some places even prosecuting) powers (and in fact elected town councils were set up in the 1830s in order to run local police forces). In the counties police were responsible to the magistrates - after the invention of the county councils in the 1880s these became joint committees of magistrates and councillors, but the chief constable tended to have operational freedom and only reported on budgets etc.

When the 1964 Act scrapped the town forces and amalgamated them with the counties they were set up under police authorities which followed the old county model. The arguments for this were based on efficiency and anti-corruption with the Chief Constable accountable to the Home Secretary (in practice) - ie another power grab by Whitehall. Arguably central control had to wait for PACE in 1984 before centrally-set rules etc really took off.

I think we've seen what goes wrong with public services when a minister in Whitehall decides that something is too important to be left to local people to run for themselves.

When True Blue says that it is undesirable to have different policing policies in different areas:
* it was like that for 130 yrs and nobody minded much - the current centralised system is the new innovation
* actually, as everyone knows, there are still differences in policy between different areas (except that nowadays they are driven by the prejudices of a senior policeman instead of the prejudices of an elected committee)

Probably the people of Bethnal Green would vote for a Galloway-type figure - although it's more likely you'd have a post for the whole of Tower Hamlets borough, and that would make for a very very interesting election for that post indeed (potentially, a 4-way marginal). But even if they did - so what? What's wrong with different localities differing from others? Where do you want to draw the line: everyone living in the same (concrete breeze-block) house? with the same incomes?

Centralised uniformity doesn't strike me as being terribly Blue, or very True for that matter.

[True Blue]

In response to Hustings - I think you are right about peoples' attitude to crime. But the Labour party have cottoned on to this, and are giving the appearance of being right wing on crime with populist (and, to be fair, popular) measures such as ASBOs. (I can't find a recent opinion poll about this -anyone?)

Any candidate who puts themselves forward for this ostensible elected police chiefdom will talk this talk, regardless of where they are in the political spectrum.

[John Hustings]

"Any candidate who puts themselves forward for this ostensible elected police chiefdom will talk this talk, regardless of where they are in the political spectrum."

But introducing democratic accountability will force them to do more than just talk.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

That's policing also in Nottinghamshire, Greater Manchester, North Wales (and I daresay a load of other places).

I don't doubt the need for reform, and I think Cameron's proposals are a step in the right direction, but I do despair of people on here talking like a bad parody of a Daily Mail letters page.

In this part of Greater Manchester, I see a reasonably senior local police officer at a meeting at least every month. There was a police officer at my Area Executive Board last Thursday night. She talked in some depth about vehicle crime as there had been a recent blip, and explained what was being done about it, she talked about burglary reduction schemes, and she talked about anti-social behaviour. Violent crime figures are always asked about, and always mentioned.

I'm not saying there are no problems, and the democratic accountability is a big step forward (and a step I support wholeheartedly), but reading some people's comments you'd think that crime happens because the Police are all at an LGBT Outreach Centre or something. That's absurd.

[Sean Fear]

The outlandish priorities of some of our senior officers don't just feature in the Daily Mail Ian.

[Tory T]

Iain - the problem with PC-posturing by the police is not that they can't catch muggers while they're attending PC events. It's that it's indicative of a mindset - the minset of the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Guardian, the Probation Service, the Home Office, etc, etc. These institutions (and most of the individuals within them) simply don't see crime in the same way as the rest of us. They see 'crime' as socially constructed and 'criminals' as victims of oppressive political structures.

The Daily Mail is a ghastly immoral rag but its ranting taps into a widespread and legitimate anger at the abject failure of those in authority to protect us from criminals.

Any politician who tries to deal with crime risks bringing down upon his head a shit storm from the liberal establishment and its media mouthpieces while, understandably, being disbelieved by a cynical populace grown weary by endless empty promises to 'get tough'.

The only way of wrong-footing and out-manouevring the left while inspiring public confidence is to allow voters to decide for themselves.

I have no doubt that a police commissioner elected in almost any part of the UK on a Bill Bratton/Rudoph Gulliani-style platform would make a huge difference. The Guardian et al would have to stand by (teeth gnashing) while habitual criminals and anti-social pondlife got what they deserve.

At that point quite a few of the less recidivist types would realise the game was up and would buckle under - and the hardcore trashbags would be completely isolated. Long, long prison sentences would take them out the equation and - bingo - happier, heathier and more peaceful communities would be the result.

[Richard]

These reforms seem promising. I fear, however, that they are not enough to battle this unfortunate trend:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/recordedCrimePer100.htm

[True Blue]

The same tough, fair policing everywhere is what I want. Of course, police forces should adapt to local conditions - but that's up to the police to decide. The last thing the police need is more politicisation.

At what level is everyone proposing that these police comissars should be elected? By town, by county, by region? People don't seem to give a monkeys about regional assemblies, mayors (outside London) or yet more conflicting politic masters.

A handful of local activists will take an interest in these kind of elections, and we know where that leads.

[True Blue]

Just one last point - if we'd had this kind of set up when the miner's strike was on, Margaret Thatcher would not have been able to break it, as it involved shipping police from all over the country, particularly London. Any left-wing elected official might have considered it their mandate to prevent this, with goodness knows what constitutional and trade union legislation implications.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I have to disagree with Iain's last posting. As a gay man, I do not want the police to attend endless LGBT and other such 'forums': I want them on the streets catching criminal. I suspect that this too is the case from the black community. I was mugged at knifepoint just before Christmas and I called the local police station. It took twenty minutes to get to hear a voice and then came the answer phone! I then called 999 and they said that somebody would immediately visit me for a statement. At 4am, I decided that I couldn't wait any longer and fell asleep. I called in the morning only to be told that the police HAD visited me but they then went to the wrong address. And it gets worse: I visited Tottenham Police Station only to be told that the queue was averaging for 2 hours because the officers were "busy". Yet at a recent LGBT forum, there were ten of them in the audience. Incompetence and unashamedly political correctness are the hallmarks of the Met Police. I want zero-tolerance, less paperwork and political correctness AND directly-elected commissioners. Does David Cameron want to see these changes?

[Sean Fear]

I'm sorry to hear that Justin. To be fair, I'm sure that not *all* police forces are as bad as that. But I think you're correct that what most members of minority groups want is effective policing, not stunts.

[True Blue]

Justin - I can't see any mention of these LGBT forums on the met police website, and I am saddened to hear that they are all sitting around learning about diversity instead of answering the phone and getting out to crime scenes. It's a pretty serious allegation, though. Is there anything you can point me at online which supports this view, or is this just anecdotal?

[True Blue]

According to dear old Civitas, we've got some of the worst crime rates in the developed world through years of Conservative government, as well as Labour. Worse than the States, even. Who would have thought it?

Either society is falling apart due to corrupted family values, or those figures are a bunch of monkey doo. However, I can only find a Guardian article to support my view that monkeys have been at work, so I remain open-minded on this point.

[Rob]

All of this talk of police reform is welcome. Making the Police more accountable and efficient is an obvious way to reduce crime. However the continuing rise in crime cannot be reversed simply by such small changes. The roots of crime lays in a poor education system. The only way to reverse this social trend is to sort out the education system. We should be adopting what is recognised as the most successful education model in the world. The selective school system. However Cameron has ruled this out. I dispair sometimes!

[Ted]

True Blue -
I'm confused - on the one hand you don't think locally accountable police forces will work (so assume you would support the Blair proposal for regionalised centrally managed forces) on the other we are in a terrible pickle and it's the governments fault?

Elected local police commissioners means the Commissioner wouldn't look to the Home Office or to his county council for direction but would face his voters every four or so years on how well managed his force was, how fast it answered calls, levels of crime etc. And gosh - could that be why US crime figures are falling while ours rise?

[James Hellyer]

Alternatively Ted, it could be to do with the right to bear arms and householder protection laws. From memory, ISTR that the drop in crime has been sharpest in states like Oklahoma...

[Mark Fulford]

Life on Mars is the best drama the BBC has ever produced, but I don’t want that kind of policing back – and that’s what will happen if the police face electoral pressures.

James, the right to bear arms is accompanied by innocent casualties.

[John Hustings]

"James, the right to bear arms is accompanied by innocent casualties."

*Not* allowing the right to bear arms is also accompanied by innocent casualties. Remember, most criminals are armed anyway.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Note how the fiancée of the murdered solicitor in Willsden, London, told Londoners to protect themselves by carrying a weapon. We cannot rely on the police to protect us so we have to look after ourselves. For the record, I do not carry a weapon when I leave my flat but I would have no hesitation is doing a Martin-style self defence if somebody burgled me or attempted to do so. Maybe the time has come to be armed?

[James Hellyer]

"Life on Mars is the best drama the BBC has ever produced"

Hyperbole, I think. "I, Claudius", "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", "Edge of Darkness" and "Quatermass and the Pit" are all infinitely superior. And that's for starters!

"James, the right to bear arms is accompanied by innocent casualties."

Tell that to Thomas ap Rhys Pryce's family.

[James Hellyer]

"We cannot rely on the police to protect us so we have to look after ourselves."

The problem is that we have been systematically deprived of the means of protecting ourselves, only to find the police cannot do the job.

[Richard]

"*Not* allowing the right to bear arms is also accompanied by innocent casualties. Remember, most criminals are armed anyway."

This never used to be the case after the hanging of Derek Bentley. It warned criminals off of carrying firearms. Sadly we no longer have that deterrent

[Richard]

"Life on Mars is the best drama the BBC has ever produced, but I don’t want that kind of policing back – and that’s what will happen if the police face electoral pressures."

According to the website of the show "To Sam, a 21st Century liberal, Gene represents everything that is bad about the police force, everything that the force has tried to stamp out over the last 30 years."

This sounds to me like a good reason to bring back that sort of policing. Having said that, I unfortunately missed the first episode. I've no doubt that some elements of 70s policing (racism for example) are unsuitable but surely there might be some elements that ought to be recovered if they deliver results?

Anyhow, if that's the sort of policing people want then let them have it. If it backfires they can vote against it.

[Mark Fulford]

James, your arguments are normally so analytical and evidence based. I am genuinely surprised to hear you cite an individual case, rather than statistics as a whole.

The right to bear arms would result in more innocent people being killed, more families getting the devastating news that their loved one is dead. It would signal that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and I, for one, would leave the country.

"I've no doubt that some elements of 70s policing (racism for example) are unsuitable but surely there might be some elements that ought to be recovered if they deliver results?"

Name one.

[Sean Fear]

No Mcpherson report.

[Richard]

"Name one."

As I missed the programme I can't comment. I was hoping you might enlighten me. I shall endeavour to watch it next week. All I've heard is that some 70s methods "got results".

[Richard]

I've just thought of one. Lack of the bureaucratic 1984 PACE, which has hampered the ability of the police to police effectively.

[Selsdon Man]

True Blue is spot on. We don't need anymore tiers of elected politicians. We need less politicians not more.

[Mark Fulford]

I think it’s widely agreed that Conservatives believe in protecting people from an over-powerful state. PACE provided basic safeguards as follows:

Searching a person requires reasonable grounds and a written record

Property searches require a warrant

Arrest requires reasonable grounds

Time limits on detention without charge

Time limits to being incommunicado

Presence of a suitable adult when interviewing juveniles or mentally ill

Intimate searches must be by doctor or nurse of same sex

Reasonable grounds to take samples and fingerprints

Requirement to tape record interviews

No intimidation or oppression to get answers or statements

Interviews must allow refreshment breaks and 8 hours continuous rest in 24.

Suspects must be cautioned before questioning and told what crime is being investigated.

It’s not an arduous list and, were you to ever face questioning, I’m sure you’d want it all in place.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

The MacPherson Report should have been binned!

[paul howgate]

I`m afraid Cameron`s Police reforms are not new,in fact they are a straight lift from the infamous and misguided Sheehy report of some 10years ago.They were not workable then and they wont be workable in another 8 to 10 years,which is the timescale for the next Tory government with a majority.It does at least sound attractive to those who dont know policing

[Sean Fear]

I believe the detection rate was higher in the 1970s.

WRT PACE, I always loved the comment in LA Confidential:-

"Would you be willing to beat a confession out of a suspect; would you plant evidence on someone you knew to be guilty; if you knew a criminal was going to get off, would you shoot him? If not, you've got no future as a detective."

[True Blue]

Ted - I'm not sure where you got the idea I'm in favour of elected police comissars - I am dead against it.

I say bring back old-style 70s policing. Less understanding, more arresting. I'm afraid I don't feel much sympathy for "oppressed" or "intimidated" suspects.

[Mark Fulford]

"I say bring back old-style 70s policing. Less understanding, more arresting."

Yes, we need more gut-instinct thief takers who don't mind fitting-up known toe-rags. Let the streets of London resound to "you're nicked, you slag".

[James Hellyer]

"Get your trousers on - you're nicked!"

Sounds good to me.

[Ted]

A few random comments

1 Prior to the Bow Street Runners & magistrates court local forces policing was the responsibility of the community - hue & cry, vigilantes etc. Robert Peel's reforms recognised this in providing sufficient police on the beat to respond to the cry (with whistles to attract more) - this was in effect a contract between Parliament and the people that in giving up their rights the state would provide effective policing. Has the state lived up to this contract?

2 Re-localising general policing (there is a need for effective national organised crime, anti-terrorist force) with a commissioner directly accountable to the borough or county electorate would make police respond to voter concerns. This would mean different forces putting differential effort into different areas - so what?

3 We are seeing legislation putting more and more power in the hands of the police - the Respect proposals on summary justice, existing summary poweres on cautions and traffic offences. Do we want those powers controlled by a strong central government or by commissioners who would need to explain individually to their voters why they did something.

4 The PACE act codified judges rules - then goldplated them. The common law rules allowed a greater degree of leeway for an individual judge to decide whether evidence could or could not be presented to a jury. Putting them into the statute book removed this common sense approach. It also made them less of a effective defence of rights as once codified they could be amended by parliament - thus removing the right of silence and other attempts to enable self incrimination. Common law has centuries of development and nuances that look to a balance of personal and state rights.

[Sean Fear]

A big mistake we made in 1984 was to bring in the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been a by-word for incompetence. Prior to that, the police instructed firms of solicitors to prosecute - which worked far more effectively.

[Ted]

The CPS was a typical bodge solution - the Scots lawyers in Thtchers government knew the Procurator Fiscal model so tried to introduce that into the English model.
The version imposed on the English lacked clarity as regards the police & prosecutors roles, it had no established basis in English law and none of the authority or experience of the Scots original.

[William Norton]

Just reading myself back into the debate.

Selsdon: "True Blue is spot on. We don't need anymore tiers of elected politicians. We need less politicians not more."

I agree - sort of. It actually cuts both ways. When I was running the No Campaign in the NE Referendum one of the arguments we used against a regional assembly was that it would create a talking-shop of overpaid politicos, which played very well indeed. The Yes Men tried to respond by pointing out that an assembly, by abolishing some local councils, would reduce the number of politicians, which was true, but which backfired - when push came to shove, people actually preferred a greater number of more local politicians than a remote "artificial" assembly.

If elected police commissars (or whatever we're calling them nowadays) sit at the the top of some vast bloated regional administration then they won't work - for the reasons True Blue mentioned.

I'd bring back the old watch committees. Here on the Isle of Dogs every couple of months there's an open meeting where the police discuss issues and stats with locals. Works very well; good spirit; non-partisan - only problem being that residents can merely ventilate grievances and at the end of the day the rozzers always reply that they don't have the resources. Now if that forum could be given some bite it might actually achieve something. We should be thinking more along the lines of an American school board than a Livingstone-style mayoralty.

(Please, no witty remarks about US school boards and banning evolution. As it happens, I think the offending group actually got voted off recently, and serve them right. Although, come to think of it, if rednecks in Kansas or wherever it was really really want to ban evolution in their schools, um, well ...)

Sean Fear: "A big mistake we made in 1984 was to bring in the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been a by-word for incompetence." + numerous comments on PACE

Agreed - but something had to be done to sort out the "Guildford School" of policing: round 'em up; fit 'em up; bang 'em up. It's the old truism about centralised action always being a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and creating as many problems as it solved. The CPS wasn't such a bad idea, but we ended up with a "secondary modern" form of prosecution and it needs overhauling. I'd agree with Ted's comments.

This would be an excellent area for a Policy Group to spend some time.

[Mark Fulford]

It is the court / prosecution system that needs massive reform.

BBC South reported two typical court rulings last night:

1. Two boys who admitted setting fire to the top-deck of a bus were aquited by a judge because the CPS had gone for arson and reckless endagerment but, according to the judge, there was no reckless endangerment.

2. In court, two students were fined and banned from keeping animals for sending a live hamster in the post.

These two cases are very good examples of why we should have elected judges and an iota of commercial sense in justice.

[Ted]

Interestingly as I understand it the Procurator Fiscal can also agree summary justice - Tony Blair's proposal under the Respect agenda - either through issuing a warning or agreeing a summary judgement (fine usually) so as to save expense of a trial. I think in Scotland it's the PFs decision not the police's so it retains some distance between the police and the justice system.

[Sean Fear]

I dislike summary justice, because it blurs the distinction between guilt and innocence.

[alan hoey]

hello chaps. im a labour voter from north of watford gap. can i just say that the real underlying problem with the conservatives is that every single voter in the country knows the secret conservative agenda- which is to reward the rich with less taxes, more policing in more affluent areas, and the pick of healthcare- at the expense of others simply through power and status. everyone knows this, including the floating voters, the die hard tories, the left wing idiots and the limp wristed brigade. conservative politicians do well in the home counties such as kent etc because people quite rightly want to preserve their way of life. that is all very well. however, if that is the case, the conservative party should be seen akin to the bnp. the chaos they created in the north west, midlands, scotland, and most notably in the north east, in which the unemployment rate is so high, they are called spongers by the right wing. however, due to margaret thatcher closing down the mines, and the new technology age creating hundreds of thousands of tertiary service work, leaves the primary sector e.g the mining of raw materials such as coal. in this instance, similar to the bnp, the conservatives segregate people, not by race, but rich from poor, power and privilege from poverty. can you not see beyond your own bank account? i ask this because if there was a singular view adopted by tories and labour, and even throw a few liberal jesters as well, there could be enough mathmaticians, scientists, police etc just to make everybody happy, so while the rich get richer, the poor may also as well. what do you think? i'm not talking about communism- i just think there should be more right wing ideas in this supposedly left of centre government.