Saturday 3 November 2012

Do You Really Want To Set Targets For This?

Almost 400 police officers in North Yorkshire did not make an arrest last year. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed 383 officers made no arrests between the start of April 2011 and the end of March this year.
Well, that was a complete waste of a FOI request then, wasn't it? Because I can think of many, many reasons why a police officer wouldn't necessarily make any arrests!
North Yorkshire Police pointed to several reasons why some officers would not have made any arrests, saying the figure of 383 included those on long-term sick leave, on secondments, career breaks, maternity leave or in specialist roles where arrests would not be their primary role.
Well, quite!

Using arrest as a measurement of the quality of service we get from our police farces would mean that these charming souls from the Essex Farce would be exemplars, after all:
Lisa was in Corringham when she was approached by the man, who she has a five-year restraining order against. After Lisa ignored him, he followed her to a bus stop and allegedly began harrassing her again.
Lisa intended to report him when she got home, but the man phoned police himself first and claimed Lisa assaulted him.
And of course, they were round there like rats up a drainpipe!
Lisa said: “After I got home there was a knock on the front door.
“Two male officers told me they received a call from the man, stating I had physically assaulted him in the park and they were there to arrest me. I explained what really happened, showed them the paperwork for the restraining order, and told them I was ill with cancer.
“I said I was just about to call and report the incident, but they were adamant I had to be arrested and taken to the station to be questioned.
“I became very distressed and asked them if they had any common sense or empathy, but I was told to calm down.”
Well, it was a stupid question! If they had any common sense or empathy, they’d be working for some other organisation, wouldn't they?
Lisa said she was assured she would be dealt with as a priority and would not be left waiting.
Ahahahaha! Yeah. Right…
After arriving at Grays police station at around 11am, she was fingerprinted and put in a cell. Over the next five hours she kept asking when she was going to be seen, but no one could tell her.
Lisa was eventually interviewed at 4.15pm and told there would be no action against her.
When she tried to report the breach of the restraining order, Lisa said she was told it was a “your word against his situation” as she hadn't phoned police first.
They've got your fingerprints & DNA, they've ticked a box – that’s as much work as they can handle for one day!
She said: “I’m at a loss to understand why the police couldn't have dealt with this another way.
“It just did not matter to them that I have cancer and a restraining order. It all boiled down to the fact I didn't phone them first.”
Yup. Because some of them are jobsworths. And sometimes also bullies who relish the power they have over others.

And that's really all it is, although if you are a professional activist, any such action is likely to be interpreted as the result of dark forces seeking to silence you on orders from above. Which, given you aren't exactly a household name on everyone's lips should really be taken with a large pinch of salt.

So... Would G4S really be any worse?


Anonymous said...

Intrigued by your abuse of cops as not having "common sense and empathy". Probably pointless to mention it given how most of your blog is composed but one sided accounts from the Daily Mail, even if true, don't provide an indicator of the vast majority of cops.
I've comforted the families of murder victims, consoled relatives at sudden deaths and been compassionate and professional whilst dealing with some vile offenders as well as the victims of those offences.
What have you ever done? Oh, that's right - it's not relevant for an armchair commentator ;-)


DJ said...

Well, y'know, Tang0, that's kind of your job.

If you don't like it quit and get one of those other jobs where you can retired at 50 on a full pension plus six figure tax-free lump sum.

Meanwhile, in so far as the Essex farce are apparently now providing outsourced services for stalkers, that's not their job. In fact, it's the complete opposite of their job. Even if you're an authoritarian lunatic, your support for the police will only go as far as they're doing actual policing, not just harassing ordinary members of the public at the drop of a hat.

jaded said...

Yes G4S would be worse.Enjoy.

Anonymous said...

Well DJ, it's kinda what I do.

(Loving the misrepresentation of the pension as well - really backs up your case. Not.)

That is why I find it laughable that internet critics can take one parties version of events in a a story spun by the Mail and use it to cast sweeping aspersions on the whole police establishment.

Still, I guess the use of evidence and facts to come to a reasoned conclusion is something else that is my job too and I would be naive to expect that standard from the anonymous interweb ;-)


MTG said...

That plod are consistently inconsistent is usually the best that can be said, yet I persist in my search for positives.

The Season is upon us for new plod comedy videos to rival such classics as 'On snow patrol with my riot shield', 'The World's Most Stupid Car Chases' and 'How to drive through floods at speed and remain weatherproof by activating the siren.'

Gadgetistas delivering 'there' indignation here, may even concede that such videos could never abuse police for as long as they reserve that right to themselves.

Woman on a Raft said...

So Essex didn't learn much from the Geoffrey Silkstone case where they wrongfully arrested someone in an analogous setting, i.e. someone who could show they had a lawful court order in place against a complainant, and that this might be the complainant trying to misuse the police?

After trying to hush it up, they police were obliged to pay damages and make a grovelling apology.

jaded said...

Video to follow-bitter confused old man loses lawnmower-it's hilarious.
Thier their Melvin.

jaded said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


I have to agree with an extent to Julia's sentiments here, it is the tick box mentallity and the previous government's civil law code flirtation which has caused the problem. This poor woman will have cause to seek recompense from the police under human rights legislation, which in this instance is appropriate. As was the case law which made it possible. A few checks some communications and this issue should not have happened.

As for four hundred (approx) officers not making an arrest in a region, so what, prevention is better than arrest. This does not prove that four hundred people were not doing their job possibly the contrary.

Targets and the tick box mentality should be removed from the constabulary as soon as possible. Personally I work in one of the worst sites on the planet and I still wouldn't swap my job for theirs.

Dick the Prick said...

It's that intelligence led policing we hear so much about.

JuliaM said...

"...your abuse of cops as not having "common sense and empathy"."

Not ALL cops. Certainly the ones in these two incidents, though.

"What have you ever done?"

You'd be surprised. You really would...

"That is why I find it laughable that internet critics can take one parties version of events in a a story..."

Hmmm, well, those parties have had time to collude to get their story straight, so I do see where you are coming from, Tango.. ;)

"So Essex didn't learn much from the Geoffrey Silkstone case..."

None of them ever seem to learn much, do they? But then, hey, it's only money...

Anonymous said...

Tango .

My daughter was arrested and kept in a police cell for 15 hrs after her husband punched her in the face and held her by her throat. This was because when the plod arrived the drunken asshole rushed out to tell him she had scatched his face. he was so pissed he could hardly stand and was left in charge of 3 kids. My wife and family used to always help the police with their inquiries, now as far as I am concerned they can go fuck themselves.

PSwife worked for police for many years...................

Anonymous said...

Dear Miss Predator

I thought the police needed a warrant to make an arrest based on information laid after an alleged attack, with judicial oversight of the arresting process. The modern method of rolling up and arresting someone merely upon the say so of a complainant smacks of the situation once described to me of Franco's Spain, where people with an axe to grind would denounce someone to the police who would then come and beat him up.

The process is now the punishment and the harvesting of fingerprints and DNA seems a top police priority.

There are lessons to be learned here: anyone who assaults anyone needs to be first to allege an assault and the police will continue the assault on his or her behalf. He doesn’t even have to pay for this service.


jaded said...

It's posts like the one above that make me realise that I am fighting a losing battle.Police "need a warrant" to make an arrest!Also ones that start;the desk Sergeant/clip round the ear/all 6"2 tall and ex-guardsmen...etc etc.
"Beat him up"? Sorry did the police here beat him up? Where does that feature in this story?
As for the "harvesting" of DNA-I don't give a toss about your DNA.None of us on the front line do,it seems to be an obsession on here.

Anonymous said...

It is terrifying that Jaded & Tango hold warrant cards. Not much for much longer Insh'allah.

jaded said...

Oh while you're there Broxted-what happened to your application for PCC? I have checked the various websites and none of your names appear.I assume yet another delusional lie?

Bill said...

There is nothing wrong with arresting people if that what needs to be done. On the facts presented here that doesn't seem to be the case. I have no evidence other than blogs and news reports but it does seem that there is a systematic problem with the police not asking themselves " is this necessary?"

Anonymous said...

Two parts to this section. First, there are many officers whose role does not include either contact with the public - intelligence (not an oxymoron with a Police connection despite what many may say) or as an enquriies officer (a Police officer whose main role is to act on behalf of other forces in obtaining statements, interviews under caution or other action which are then forwrded to the original force for their action as deemed necessary). This may seem a waste of time but is more efficient than sending Police oficers all over the country to complete investigations.
The second part is, for those who find themselves on the wrong end of "I am arresting you for...." is to forget that the Police officer is your friend and say nothing further. Do not try to explain as this will be included in the officer's statements and will no doubt be used, in some way, against your case. You can say, "Can you confirm that you have received a statement of allegation by the other party in which they have signed the statement that if they state something they know to be false, they are committing an offence for which they can be prosecuted?" The bugger for this is that the Police officer has to record this, word by word, in his/her statement and also have to explain how they answered and, if they didn't give an answer, explain why not (can sometime cause great hilarity in a magistrates court). If no such statement has been made, query the power of arrest. At the first opportunity, demand to see a duty solicitor (the cost is borne by the Police, not by you) and only speak to the solicitor when you know you are not being overheard - also ask if the solicitor has been given the required information (disclosure) regarding the arrest -a requirement of PACE. Try and answer any question by the Police with another question ("Do you know why you have been arrested?" "Should I?" "Do you always answer a question with a question?" "Is that a problem?", etc. If you concentrate very hard, you can keep this going for ages. You will be asked close questions, where the answer will either be a 'yes' or a 'no.' You can still cause problems by saying something like. 'What do you think?' In the main, the Police get it right, but they are required to act on the information given to them at the time. A query as to whether an arrest is necessary can cause all sorts of alarm bells to ring, CPS officials to suffer anal palpitations, leading to a 'no further action' result. Police officer are human, they make mistakes and quite often have no belief in the action they are required to make. The object is to make it even more difficult for them to charge you with an offence. Class it as a life experience, albeit a serious one, and demand to know what rights you have - they are required by law to tell you. Don't forget, however, that they are vary often as pissed off at what life has thrown their way as you are.

Rob said...

So the rule is now if you are assaulted by someone, make sure you have a mobile with a good signal. If possible, make the call while the thug is beating you up, this precludes the scumbag getting in first and mandating that the police must obviously take his word over yours.

It isn't just stories like this that lead ordinary people to mistrust the police. It's the police's refusal to admit their stupidity or apologise for it, as evidenced by theose on this blog.

Johnm said...

Would they be any worse ?
Dunno. Since several of their staff have been dismissed for sexual activity with their "charges" in detention centres I suppose her experiences could have been worse with private police ? (not necessarily M/F relationships either)
And since, at least locally, private security tend to use excessive force when "ejecting" people from drinking establishments (including dragging an inebriate women out of a nightclub by her breasts, with great relish (witnessed by an off-duty police person)).....
The police may not be the best, but they're better than the rest.
Oh, and you didn't bother to ask whether they (arresting officers) were operating to "target" (even if they are no longer targets) ?