So, for the uninformed or for those who had simply forgotten, here they are in all their glory. Please read and inwardly digest…

Rules Of Blah:

Probationary Bronze Card 0 – 2 years service

1. NO BLAH WHATSOEVER

Bronze Card 2 – 4 years service

1. All Blah to be limited to no more than 30 minutes per tour of duty
2. Must consult a Platinum Cardholder about Blah content before addressing the public arena
3. All Blah to be factual and witnessing officer to be present during presentation.
4. Any Blah from a previously worked division to be supported by MG11 [Statement] from witnessing officer/s
5. Must accept all belittling and ridicule of their Blah efforts in good spirit
6. Under no circumstances to Blah to probationary constables unless supervised by a Platinum Cardholder

Silver Card 4 – 10 years service 

1. Unlimited Blah when supervised by Platinum or Gold cardholders
2. Unsupervised Blah when in company of junior officers – subject to a strict enforcement of no more than an audience of four (4) other officers – none of whom are allowed to hold probationer status
3. May only Blah about any incident attended in company of a senior card holder after that officer has first declined the opportunity to do so or considers the Blah factor to be beneath his exclusive position.

Gold Card 10 – 15 years service 

1. Unlimited Blah during any tour of duty
2. All Blah must be factually based, but subject to generous poetic license
3. May be challenged by Platinum cardholders only
4. Any non divisional Blah to be supported by a witnessing officer.

Platinum Card 15 – 30 years service 

Officers in the above category are permitted:

1. Unlimited Blah during any tour of duty
2. The right to tell outrageous tall stories and swing the blue lamp without challenge – even if it’s obvious they are lies or physically impossible.
3. However, all the above are obliged to mention the miner’s strike, the Brixton/Tottenham Riots or any major act of terrorism or civil unrest and imply they played a pivotal role for which they are entitled to humble acclaim

The question has apparently been asked by Avon and Somerset PCC Sue Mountstevens and is one that would give some cause for concern about the degree to which the line separating PCSO and PC should be blurred. Whilst this power has been in existence since 2007, it has only (to my knowledge) been utilised within the British Transport Police.
Alongside this decision there would also have to be a review of the equipment provided and routinely carried by PCSOs. A power of arrest without the appropriate PPE would certainly be a recipe for disaster. So what is the solution – hand-cuffs, incapacitant spray and batons for all….?

Predictably, and with some degree of justification, the Police Federation has voiced its concerns over these proposed changes.

I am a firm advocate of the PCSO role in its current format. These officers have the time and skills to do work that wouldn’t get done properly – if at all, if it were added to the workload of officers on response teams. Their work may not always as glamorous and high profile as the blaze-of-glory stories of Policing recounted by those who have earned the right under the ‘rules of blah’. But it is often the work which has a more lasting effect. They are the anti-biotic that underpins (and normally outlasts) the sticking plasters dished out by the response team.

In my opinion, the minute Police forces start giving the powers of a Police Officer to their PCSO’s they will find themselves filling the gaps that currently exist in the demands placed on the response teams. I have already seen an increased reliance on the Special Constabulary and increased recruiting to their ranks while PC recruiting remains almost non-existent. The closer a PCSO gets to performing the role of  a Police Officer, the more they will be treated as such, and the more they will find themselves abstracted from their primary role. There is a real potential for that two tier Policing, that those in power denied would ever exist when the PCSO role was created, to become a reality.

NB: The ‘Rules of Blah’ are to be explained in tomorrow’s post. I have had a copy of these in my drawer for years but will supply them in online form – credited to one of my colleagues who published them back in 2010…

Michael Dolan (49) felled PC Glen Hill, whilst reportedly drunk and on steroids, after the officer attended the incident single-crewed in November. PC Hill was knocked to the ground and then, whilst lying helpless, was beaten around the head approximately 30 times by Dolan, who had taken possession of the officers canister of CS spray. The officer received a deep laceration to his head and required treatment in hospital for his injuries. Dolan subsequently admitted an offence of GBH and was sentenced to 32 months in prison – meaning he will be likely to serve well under a year and a half.

The circumstances leading up to the assault are echoed throughout many counties on a daily basis and have left officers again questioning the rationale behind single-crewing policies. 

Chief Superintendent for Rotherham, Jason Harwin, is quoted in the article as stating that staffing levels on the night of the incident were appropriate and described the incident as ‘regrettable’. He followed this comment by reminding everyone that ‘Policing does have its risks’.

In some respects I agree with this statement. Policing does have its risks but I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of Senior Managers like Chief Superintendent Harwin to stand up for the right of his officers to complete their duty without these kinds of ‘regrettable’ incidents. If he considers that the level of staffing is justified (taking into account the high chance of deployment to, or simply coming across, incidents of this type) then the consequences of that decision – in this case an officer having his head split open – must, by definition, also be considered acceptable.

They are clearly NOT! 

Those that would brush off this incident saying that the officer failed to assess the risks properly should understand that the very reason most become a Police Officer is to step toward those in need of help. Expecting us to just sit in the nick or stand nearby and watch, is not realistic. That’s not what we do… 

I know, all too well, the counter-argument to this situation. I know that those in control of the purse strings will say that there are times of night when having two officers ‘doing nothing’ together in the same car is unproductive. They will say that in these times of tight budgets and public non-confidence then twice the cars means twice the work and twice the visibility. From the safe side of the office table this may be true, but what it actually means is that officers spend the night following each-other around to jobs, burning twice the diesel because they all know that even the most routine call can turn into something tragic. Any job that involves a pub, a road, a domestic or a prisoner will need more than one officer to deal with it. The vast majority of what we now deal with on the response teams fall under one of these headings, so why not accept that the safety of officers is more important than saving a few quid in salaries only to spend a fair chunk of it on extra cars and fuel.

Budgets are a necessary evil in these times but, in my mind, the cost of an injured officer is far higher.

Has the PLC changed the reason many apply to become a Special or PCSO?

Better qualified officers and a more efficient and productive recruitment process are a must-have in the new age of Policing on the cheap a budget. We should rightly look to cut unnecessary spending and streamline expensive processes to make them fit more into the current financial picture.

What we should not do, however, is engage in a process that can ultimately damage the quality of those on the streets and the confidence of the public in those that wear the uniform.

A recent trend in many forces is to take on increased numbers of Special Constables and PCSO’s compared to Regulars. As the Army increase their Territorial compliment and cut the number of full time paid soldiers, so the balance shifts within the Policing world. Historically, the roll of Special Constable has been seen as one that leads some into full time Policing, but for most it is a vocation. This was almost exclusively the case for the PCSO too…until recently.

With virtually no Police Officer recruitment planned for external applicants until 2013 in most parts of England and Wales, the PLC qualification – to be replaced by the NPIA sanctioned Policing Knowledge Certificate (CKP) next year in the Met (and no doubt other forces) – has caused a definite change to the motivation behind applications to many forces in respect of non-Police Officer posts. I know of many people who have joined forces (particularly the Met and Surrey) as a Special or a PCSO with no intention of doing anything other than gaining access to the PLC and moving on to the internal recruitment process as soon as possible. This option is made more attractive by the fact that many of the forces who ask for the PLC qualification, also offer a discount or interest free loan to existing staff. Some would not be able to fund the course without that help…

You might ask what my issue is with this. Surely these applicants are just exploiting a loophole in order to get access to their chosen career.

That may be the case, but my concern is that for many of those (particularly the PCSO’s) who would previously joined to do the role they applied for, the carrot of internal recruitment will mean they have little or no interest in anything other than getting their hands on the qualification and moving to where they actually want to be. As a result of this, recruitment processes in those forces that use the PLC are now flooded with people who are applying for, and potentially getting, a job they don’t even want to do. Neighbourhood offices risk being crammed with PCSO’s studying for their PLC rather than looking after their neighbourhood!*

With the CKP replacing the PLC and becoming nationally recognised from April 2013, there is no guarantee that the PLC will be worth a bean by the time many get through the course. Should this happen, and potential recruits then have to take the CKP at a cost of up to £1000, many could end up stuck in their ‘gateway’ role for longer than they anticipated. What happens to their motivation then….

My view is that the role of the PCSO is becoming diluted by this situation. Specials are less so as the roles are similar in many respects. I think that the clear definition should be returned before a PCSO post becomes more of a Police apprenticeship with discounted college courses thrown in.

I believe that those forces that are recruiting internally should allow external candidates to stand alongside their internal counterparts. It is hugely short sighted to believe that it is those within the organisation who are, without reservation, the best candidates for Police Officer posts. Whilst I agree with assisted learning within any organisation, I do not agree with the culture that the PLC funding has created and that which the CKP will inherit. Those that do vocational roles such as PCSO should be those that have their heart and soul in the job…not a revision book.

—–

*Before I get thrown to the wolves…. I know that there are many exceptional Specials and PCSO’s out there who do their role exactly as was intended when it was created. I also know there are many that would never consider crossing to the dark side and joining the ‘regulars’, but there are many that would and it is these to which this post relates.

This video cropped up on my radar today and illustrates beautifully how we should treat those that fail to acknowledge that they should be accountable for their actions. Have a watch and see if you share the unstoppable grin that invaded my face during the last quarter of the video.

Our thoughts are with his family, friends and colleagues at this most difficult time.

Police Federation chairman Paul McKeever dies in hospital

Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, has died in hospital.

The federation, which represents rank and file officers, said Mr McKeever, 57, had suffered a suspected embolism.

It praised Mr McKeever, who took on the post in 2008 and was due to retire later this month, as a “true gentleman” and “truly outstanding police officer”.

Mr McKeever joined the Metropolitan Police in the 1970s and had been a key figure in the federation for 20 years.

As one of the police’s most visible spokesmen, he clashed repeatedly with the government over cuts to police budgets and force numbers, which he argued were putting public safety at risk.

‘Total shock’

Announcing his decision to retire last summer, he expressed his concern that the work of police officers was being “denigrated”.

Mr McKeever also entered the row over former cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell’s altercation with police officers outside Downing Street, criticising the MP’s behaviour and saying his resignation was “almost inevitable”.

But after doubts were raised about the conduct of police officers in the row and the validity of the claims against Mr Mitchell, Mr McKeever said he would apologise if Mr Mitchell was found to have been wrongly accused.

In a statement, Steve Williams, who is due to succeed Mr McKeever, said he had been “a truly outstanding chairman, and most importantly a truly outstanding police officer and man.

“A true gentleman, his leadership and reputation will be remembered highly by all those who knew him,” he added.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe said he was “deeply saddened” by the news.

‘Worked tirelessly’

John Tully, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said Mr McKeever’s death had come as a “total shock to everyone”, adding that he had led the Federation through “perhaps the most demanding time in its history”.

The Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales also paid tribute to Mr McKeever.

“He was a man who was proud to be a police officer and worked tirelessly on behalf of the public and members of his federation to improve policing,” its president Derek Barnett said. “He will be very sorely missed.”

Mr McKeever, who was married with one daughter, joined the police from university and served as a frontline officer in London for 15 years, during which time he was on duty during the riots in Brixton in 1981 and 1985.

As well as his role as federation chairman, Mr McKeever served as chairman of the Staff Side of the UK Police Negotiating Board and was a board member of the Police Leadership College.

This video has been posted by Sgt Gary Watts from Devon and Cornwall Police and is ‘a tongue in cheek attempt at a parody of Psy’s Gangnam Style to raise awareness and funds for Josh Wilson’ who has severe neuromuscular disabilities that mean he requires a fully adapted home.

Please watch, laugh and then donate at http://www.superjosh.co.uk

Enjoy…

I would love to be able to cleanse the demons by spilling all the dark thoughts and all the feelings that linger still out onto the page, but due to the nature of the jobs involved – I can’t.  Not because of any legal issue or to protect the investigation.  Simply because many of those who read this blog and (unknowingly) work alongside me would easily spot any attempt to conceal the facts with poetic licence and literary makeup. I have no option but to resist the urge to share the pain of the last 24 hours and await a time when the memories have faded to recount things in hope of closure.

As I lay on my pillow last night, waiting for exhaustion to finally win the battle with my perpetually spinning brain, I have to admit I wondered whether it was actually worth doing this job any more. Day after day, week after week and year after year we put on that uniform and go out into a world that has a fraction of the respect that used to exist, trying to fix more things than ever with a fraction of the resources, and dealing with – for the most part – the ungrateful and the unstable in our society rather than relentlessly hounding the criminals like we should be.

And for what…

I have listened to people’s last words, to the screams of my colleagues – fighting for their lives on the other end of a radio, I have held the hands of the dying and followed the coffins of friends. How much of this should any of us have to experience in one lifetime?

I have worked on for hours, getting the job done when others have gone home, my family have suffered my absence a hundred times. I have done this only to be berated for the smallest omission by those who micromanage under the bright glare of hindsight.

When all the pieces fall into place we can make a difference for a while. A month…a week…a day…maybe only a few hours – but it’s a difference. Those successes are what keep us going but they are getting harder to find all the time and the warm feeling of satisfaction fades faster now chilled by the cold light of reality and the knowledge that even the best placed twig won’t make a dam against the torrent of modern criminality.

It was light outside by the time I finally drifted off this morning only to be woken by my phone a couple of hours later. The call was short – an apology followed by a shift change notification. I should be getting ready now, but I just don’t know if I want to. I know, deep down that I will, and come five o’clock I will be back behind the wheel, ready to face it all again – because that’s what we do.

Thankfully these days are rare – usually I just roll with the punches and drown the fatigue in coffee but today is one of those days and it’s going to be hard to shake off the excess weight. I feel that putting this into words has helped a little. It’s not what I wanted to write, and I apologise for the morbid tone of the post, but there’s no point pretending everything is peachy. Burying problems only lets them put down roots and pretty soon you’ve got a whole damn tree to chop at.

Anyway, I will catch you all later…I guess it’s time to get ready.

A slightly less high-profile event is the annual competition forTwitter users known as the GoldenTwits. I have been nominated again this year following on from moderate success in 2011. This blog and the associated Twitter account @minimumcover are competing in the ‘Writing’ category. In an attempt to promote my entry a little I have included a few links below which take you to the most popular stories on my blog. Please take the time to have a read and share them with your friends if you feel they are deserving of it. Please also take 30 seconds to click on the VOTE button to the left hand side of the front page and support my nomination – shortlists are announced on 3rd December so there are about three weeks left to register your vote!

‘…and then there was silence‘

‘Attacked Because Her Daddy is a Cop‘

‘Graphic Post: The innocence of youth… ‘

‘The Reality of a Rape Allegation’

‘Shattering Lives…‘

…and finally

I hope to publish the second Guest Blog later this month. If you like what you have read and think your writing would be of interest to my readers if it were published here, send me an email and I promise to get in touch very soon.

So, on went the cuffs and ten minutes later we started the search of his flat. The Staffie in the flat was the least problematic resident – Jenny was in the mood for a fight despite being nearly five months pregnant with Chris’ child. It turned out that she wasn’t off her face as was first thought, but she still appeared to have demoted the welfare of her unborn child to a level of priority just below giving all the coppers a slap. Eventually she was carefully restrained and the search could continue. Forty minutes later the job was done and she was also under arrest following the discovery of nearly 60 wraps of Cocaine and Heroin as well as other bits and pieces associated with their sale. Nearly £1300 in cash was also found tucked away in the freezer.

The months passed and the investigation was completed. The drugs and phones were all examined and everything passed muster with the CPS – charges for Possession with Intent for both Chris and Jenny were authorised. The court process was straight forward and within four months there were high fives in the office when custodial sentences (although both were suspended – grrr) were passed down to the couple. The court ordered that, as had happened with her previous child, her latest child should pass immediately into the custody of Social Services at birth. This was due to concerns about her standard of living, drugs use and the serious concerns about her ability to take care of her off-spring. Chris was also put on a Drug Treatment order due to his long-term addiction – he failed to comply with the testing element of this last time he was given one but maybe this time would be different!

Now we come to the point of the story. We, as a civilised society, can lawfully impose a raft of restrictions on people through the courts. We can take away a persons right to bring up their children, even before those children are born and we can enforce the taking of prescription medication in respect of a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) – substituting Heroin with Methadone for example. These are very expensive steps which focus on restorative or reactive solutions.

The effectiveness of a DRR is very much hit and miss relying on the motivation of the offender to change their own lives. Some make this a turning point and take the opportunity with both hands. Others, like Chris……not so much.

The effectiveness of social services intervention at the birth of a child is something that is almost impossible to measure. Granted, the child will be removed from a parent or parents that have significant issues in their lives and end up potentially being raised in a more stable environment. I have no figures or case studies to support my theory, but I would expect that in many cases their prospects would be dramatically improved. Should we, however, be taking things one step further and preventing the problem in the first place.

I am not going to start a fight with the pro-life campaigners or make any comments on enforced or consensual abortions. That’s a matter for another post – if not another blog entirely! What I do consider to be a potential alternative is a different take on the enforced medication aspect of the DRR. Would it not, in circumstances where there has already been an assessment of unsuitability in respect of parenting, be worth considering compulsory contraception for the offender (either male or female) to prevent a life being created in the first place? I am not talking about mandatory condoms or pills – that would never work, but perhaps consideration to mandatory use of the contraceptive injection or an implant.

The reasoning behind my view is this:

If we already know that a child could be at risk if brought into the world by an offender, and that it is likely that parental responsibility will be taken away from that person, do we not have a responsibility to prevent this birth from happening in the first place. I feel that temporarily (ie NOT permanently) removing the potential for the un-restricted creation of life is a completely justifiable course of action in some circumstances. It is a long way short of enforced sterilisation, which would be a step too far in my view, and simply builds on the legislation allowing other enforced medication. If the courts can have the power to place medical and physical restrictions on people’s lives to prevent offending, can we not take the same stance on child protection.

I suppose, in its most basic form, the debate is about whether a persons right to have children regardless of their circumstances or ability to care for them is more important than the right of the child they create. In a country where more than 6,000 children are awaiting adoption and foster places are required for another 8,000 is it not about time that something is done to tackle the cause rather than the result?

NB: Any contraception order would obviously be time limited like a custodial sentence. It would also take into consideration a raft of medical considerations and other checks to ensure that no harm came to the subject of the order.