Ssssh, it's the filth!

It's the end of PACE. New police powers to stop and question suspects muted.

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:09:00 +0000

Oh my good God.

Not content with already having the most oppressive set of terrorism legislation in Europe, the outgoing duo of John Reid and Tony Blair have come up with another little gem.

What the new measures would entail is the Police being able to stop any ask people about not only their identity, but also now their movements. A useful side-dish to ID cards, no?!

Still, worry not, boys and girls. Reid's spokesperson did assure us that the police would still need "reasonable suspicion" that a crime may be committed before using the new powers.

Uh-huh. Consider this then. Out of a total number of 16,206 S44 stop and searches carried out in London alone during 2001-02 AND 2002-03 only 13 (no, really, thirteen) arrests were terrorist related. (Source: Statistics on Race & the Criminal Justice System-2003: A Home Office Publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (2004))

The Select Committee on Home Affairs, during a sitting of May 2004, found here, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, noted the following here.

Parliament intended s44 authorisations to be given and confirmed only in response to "an imminent terrorist threat to a specific location in respect of which normal police powers of stop and search were inadequate." The Mayor is, therefore, concerned that the "rolling" s44 authorisations across the MPD have become part of day-to-day policing and as such are not in accordance with Parliament's intentions. The Mayor notes the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal judgements that Parliament had envisaged that an anti-terrorist authorisation might encompass an entire police area or district. He is persuaded that it is not the existence of the s44 power that could cause civil liberties infringements but the exercise of that power.

and

Furthermore, very few individuals stopped and searched will know the distinction between the ranges of legislation. If they have been informed by a police officer that they were stopped and searched under terrorism suspicions, or they themselves perceive that they have been stopped and searched for this, then the cumulative negative impact on BME communities is that they feel they are being targeted, labelled and criminalised as terrorist suspects. Indeed Home Office statistics reveal that during 2002-03 per 1,000 population, London's black and Asian populations were stopped and searched almost four times and nearly 1.5 times more often than "white" people under PACE. In 2001-02, more Asians were stopped than black people.

In addition to the problems above, I have serious concerns about where this is heading. The title of this post was "The End of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act".

PACE - linked here- was a landmark piece of legislation. For the first time, a proper framework of protection for those persons arrested for, or on suspicion, was in place that not only governed police powers around key areas such as Stop Search, Arrest and Detention but also made it compulsory for detained persons to be made aware of their legal rights AND have mechanisms in place to deal with those people who didn't understand their rights in the first place.

However, unlike the current Codes of Practice that describe the circumstances in which the police can interview a person, these new proposed powers would provide officers with the opportunity to ask admissible questions to people without the benefit of legal representation that might result in their further arrest and detention. The very act of not providing an acceptable answer would itself be an offence under the new proposals.

This is an example of legislation creep. I have very little doubt in my mind that if this legislation came to pass, that we would then see other offences for where the police would be able to interview people on the street. No tapes, no PACE codes of Practice, not right to speak with a solicitor etc.

Sounds like a police state, right? Franco and Hitler would be delighted.

The role of the police is not to treat every person as a suspect. It is to maintain the balance between privacy and considered, intelligence-driven policing. I fail to see what right the Police has to stop people under "terrorism" powers (remember just how many "Terrorism" arrests have been made under the existing powers) when there are already fifteen different pieces of legislation that allow the police to stop people.

It is not right, and cannot be right, that we allow the relationship between the Police and the Citizen to be changed so fundamentally with these horrific proposals.

I would rather die a citizen of a terrorism attack in a free country than as a citizen of a terrorist attack in a country with all the civil liberties of China.

All hail to my visitors from the RDVC Forum re. Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 and collectors of Zulu or boer war pith helmets

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Wed, 09 May 2007 18:55:00 +0000

No, really. They even link here!

rorkesdriftvc.com

Good day to you all!

Boing! Out goes Dr. John Reid!

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Wed, 09 May 2007 17:13:00 +0000

Whoops! That'll be another Home Secretary leaving, then!

Poor old Home Office. Not content with being split into two giant pieces of, er, civil service paper-chasing, it's Daddy has left them for another job. Again.

Indeed, since the relative stability of having Jack Straw in place for four years from 1997 to 2001, the Department's had less than a happy run of it.

David Blunkett - oh, you know - David Blunkett? Yes, the one who wanted to lock everyone up and give us ID Cards, as I mentioned back in Feb 2006?

ID cards? Oh, come on, you MUST remember him? The guy who watered down the right to a trial by jury and who wanted to do away with it altogether? The one who had a fling with one Kimberly Fortier, publisher of The Spectator Magazine...which the, er, Tory, MP Boris Johnston works for? Who allegedly fiddled an immigration claim for his ex-lover's former nanny? The one who purchased a railway ticket for the same woman out of public funds?

Yes, he really did run the Home Office during this. He even had time to write books and write for several newspapers during all this. It's tough at the top!

Then came Charles "Has anyone seen my foreign prisoners" Clarke who lasted a whole six months! Still, not a bad innings for someone who had over 1000 foreign inmates slip out of the net on his watch (although it's worth pointing out the many of these also happened in, er, David Blunkett's time there).

So, Dr. Reid is now bowing out, but - like those before him - he leaves behind a trail of newspaper headlines and bitter aftertastes. One of the best parts, for me, was him really rallying the troops at the beleaguered Home Office almost before the revolving doors had stopped swinging 'round on his first visit by declaring that the Department "isn't fit for purpose".

Way to get people behind you, John!

Still, to his credit, Dr. Reid has never paid much attention to whether people liked him or not - every television interview I saw with him made me roll my eyes as a stereotypically aggressive Minister spent several minutes telling us that we're all going to die and that there were terrorists on every corner of every street. And don't even MENTION the topic of immigration to him.

Fear. Fear. Fear.

So, what now for the poor people of Whitehall? Well, once they've unpacked their crates and dusted off the spankingly new "Department of Justice" headed paper and Tony Blair's finally buggered off once and for all, maybe someone will start actually giving a shit about policy and tackling the mess of overcrowded prisons, repeat offending and a demoralised police service.

NEXT!

Pc Richard Gray

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:42:00 +0000

I don't propose going over the circumstances of the dreadful shooting of Richard Gray, since there has been plenty of coverage elsewhere. Needless to say, I found the news somewhat depressing; I can't imagine what it must be like for families to have to deal with at home.

His death did, as expected, reopen the aging debate of whether police officers should be armed and it was only on this point that I wanted to comment.

I've long argued "no" to routine arming of officers. Perversely, I tend to fall on the side of the debate that says that in areas of high crime, especially violent crime, having armed officers will only encourage criminals to come tooled up themselves. It's bad enough the knife crime is on the general increase, let alone gun crime.

I guess my point here would to keep things in perspective. Gun crime in this country is low. Really low.

And, in my mind, the issue of gun control in general is of more pressing importance; the gun that killed Pc Gray was legally held - I simply fail to understand why anyone needs to have a gun, period.

I'm happy to accept less-than-lethal forms such as a Taser, but right now I am uncomfortable that groups like "Protect the Protectors", who claim to speak on behalf of the entire Police service, are cynically using this news item to promote their one-topic crusade.

Updated blogroll

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:09:00 +0000

Bobby's Lot hasn't had a post in nearly three months, so it's dropped off the radar and my links for now.

An Inspector Writes, however, has joined the fray.

Internet search engine biscuit-wiping loon bread nonsense

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:40:00 +0000

The most popular words that brought people to this blog in the past few weeks, in ascending order:

In third place:

'Police' (no surpise)

In second place:

'Foreigners' & 'Hats' in equal place

In first place:

'Victorian army ovens.'

Huh? What loon looks for "Victorian Army Ovens" in a single search, and then keeps coming back for more?!

Internet plea for Special Constables Part II

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:25:00 +0000

I guess I should have posted some evidence of what I was on about previously....and then I found it, gift-wrapped and on a plate.

A discussion thread about baton size on policespecials.com.

I despair.

New addition

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:20:00 +0000

I shoud link to more blogs that I do, but it's quality not quantity that counts in this game. All hail to Midlands PC.

Internet plea for Special Constables

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:40:00 +0000

There are three things that I would very much like to see the end of in 2007 by a (small) number of Special Constables on the internet.

1. Photographs of yourself in uniform at home.

Urgh. Stop it. I really have no desire whatsoever to see for myself just how bad your taste in home furnishings are, your curtains that are screaming out for replacement (or a damn good clean), horrific porcelain figurines or over-grown back gardens. If you must insist upon having your visage adorned throughout your profile and 'net in your uniform why not have one of you actually on duty instead of grinning into a web-cam like some dodgy screen-shot from a dating site?

More to the point, why on earth are you getting dressed up at home and parading around in your uniform? It really doesn't do us any favours when people are perpetuating the myth that we're these sad uniform-seekers that will go so far as having pages on internet dating websites (true story) whilst dressed for duty!

2. Use of the word "Chav". Again.

This has to be one of the most over-used words of 2005 and 2006. And it's really, really 'done' now, people. It wasn't funny when it came out - and, 18 months later, it really isn't funny now, especially since it's nothing more than a derogatory term used by a large number of sneering bullies.

3. Really, REALLY lame questions about uniform.

What torch is the best? Should I buy the new swiss-army handcuff holder that comes with detachable lemon-squeezer and rubber duck? Will I get boots? What boots should I buy? Do you get fleeces...

Ask. The. Damn. Force. That. You're. Applying. To.

And stop filling your your utility belt up with superfluous pieces of equipment that you're never going to use, be able to claim expenses back for or, worse, are authorised and insured to carry!

Shoo! Shoo!

Why cyclists don't pay attention to the red lights

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:22:00 +0000

I am the very model of a Highway Code cyclist. I wear a helmet, reflective ankle bands, a florrie jacket, have Cat Eye lights front and back and always ALWAYS wait at the red lights.

Which, in turn, makes me hated to the point of verbal abuse by the two-wheeled chums who seem to think that they don't have to pay any attention to traffic signals.

My cycle to work is an adrenaline-filled experience of near-death moments as it is, usually on account of buses swinging out suddenly, mopeds trying to undertake me in the bloody cycle lane and potholes that are testing my suspension and tyres to the limit. The last thing I need is some muppet on a bike trying to park in my arse since they're trying to blissfully cycle through streams of fast-moving traffic crossing their path.

Your days are numbered, boys and girls. The FPNs will definately come out to play.

*squints*

Bing, bong! Avon calling!

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:34:00 +0000

"You there - yes, the one with the red top. No, don't look at your friends, I'm talking to YOU."

Behold the latest weapon in the anti-crime initiative, the talking CCTV cameras. These little gems are directly linked to a central control room of operators (none of them employed by the police so far, note) who will be able to speak to the people whom they are addressing via a loudspeaker.

Apparently, it will help prevent "youths congregating" (because, as we all know, everyone under 25 turns into a frenzied animal when put in the vicinity of other young people), criminal damage (the BBC clip shows those pesky skateboarders riding along a pavement) etc etc...

Number crunching:

Number of cameras: 4.2 million cameras (and rising fast)
Number of Home Secretaries: One.
Number of pieces of specific legislation covering usage, storage and distribution of CCTV images: Zero.

What's my point? Well...I remain (as ever) extremely comfortable with the changing relationship between the citizen and the state. In what is already the most watched country in the world, we seem to have an obsession with monitoring, watching, measuring, zooming in on and recording pretty much every aspect of our daily lives.

The notion that having a few cameras scattered about the shop with loudspeakers blasting out "get a haircut, you hippy" (OK, maybe not that exact comment) will get to the heart of solving the anti-social behaviour problem that I'm told is on every street corner, in every town, blighting millions, nay BILLIONS (enough hysteria. Ed) of lives simply doesn't measure up.

The fact is that we're obsessed with demonising last portions of the population (usually visible ethnic minorities or young people) such that it's almost mandatory to fear them. So, we have to assume that everyone's guilty of something, be ever watchful and intrude into the lives of everyone on account of a minority of people who - frankly - aren't going to give two hoots as to whether Big Brother is telling them to stop.

Cameras are no substitute for visible policing, community responsibility or the obligation of councils and the police to take proactive action against offenders for offences.

Our culture of self-fulfilling prophecies really does know no bounds.

And 2+2 =5.

I love it when you call, I love it when you call

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:36:00 +0000

It's promotion season! Hurrah!

Now that the OSPRE exams (Sergeant exams) are over, and that various positions and promotions are up for grabs, everyone is fluffy, covered in chocolate and positively BURSTING with enthusiasm and love for their fellow man.

Well...until the posts get filled...and people get over the dissapointment of not getting the position they wanted...and being posted to the other end of the county in a job they didn't want...oh my...

The recruitment process

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:27:00 +0000

I love this picture. I wasn't even looking for anything to do with this blog when I found it, but it made me giggle when thought of it in the context of the recruitment process for the Job.

Now, as anyone will tell you, the most nerve-racking experience for many applicants is the interview. Who will be there? What will they ask? What if I can't remember who's the Patron Saint of Bricklayers*?

In reality, for the Specials at least, it's all a little underwhelming.

The concept of "competency based interviews" isn't a new one. But the concept of applying only those type of questions and nothing else to the interview certainly was a new one on me. Consider the probing questions of

"Have you ever found yourself in a conflict situation at work, and how did you deal with it? What issues did you face?"

Correct answers might include:

"I once had to deal with what I believed to be an overly assertive supervisor who was challenging my working hours? I explained that I had been held up in traffic for the third time that week, but apologised and humbly noted that I was now setting the alarm clock half an hour earlier and changing my route to ensure that I got to work on time. I also noted that I love my job and value the opportunity to be here. I faced the issues of feeling like I'd let him down and not seen things from his perspective."

Incorrect answers to that question might include:

"I was late for work since my girlfriend was upset about the cat dying. My guvnor had a go at me, but I told him to shove it up arse, since I was the only person in the office to have been working late several times in a row this month and that he should pick on someone else. I faced the issue of dealing with the overwhelming internal urge to smash his face in with a meat pie."

Other little gems include

"Can you describe a situation where you've had to deal with somebody even if you didn't agree with their point of view?"

and

"Can you outline an example of where you've had to treat people differently on account of perceived diversity issues?"

Oh, wow. Erm....sorry, what exactly are you talking about? So then, er, you don't want to ask me about my job? About my motivation for joining the Specials? About what I think the Police Service faces in terms of challenges? No. Ah, well. I guess I pass the minimum requirements of "seems keen and dumb enough, let's chuck 'em in and see if they'll float".

*It's St. Stephen, btw.

Pay them! Pay them!

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:16:00 +0000

In another place there's been the petition put forward to pay Special Constables that we have "seen sadly in the passed pay with there lives" (sic).

Now, notwithstanding separate musings over whether this lady or gent, who, one presumes is a SC themself, ever passed the PIRT test, this brings the age-old topic of remunerating "volunteers" back into play. This isn't an new subject of discussion for the Special Constabulary. Indeed, even the Police Federation of England and Wales is broadly in support of paying SCs a 'bounty' of some description. (N.B. This already happens in Scotland).

Typical arguments put forward against making any such payments usually stem around "it would attract the wrong sort of people" and "you'd get people who are only in it for the money".

What, you mean much like some elements of the Regular Service now? Heaven forbid.

I've talked before about the main driver of the Special Constabulary - the commodity of "goodwill" and the ongoing assumption that SCs are quite prepared to put up with bad management, an indifferent supervisory structure and lack of accountable training provisions.

And, given that application numbers for the Special Constabulary are falling and that numbers are well down from what they were ten years ago, it's worth stopping to consider the relative merits of being paid.

The main reason - as I see it - for having a core of Specials that are remunerated is that it would force the Police to hold to account and task SCs with duties that are actually going to return some value back to the system. The police, being part of the public sector (save for Forces like the BTP), are obsessed with measuring, evaluated and assessing everything they do.

Even the loo-roll at your home station would have been subject to a procurement process and competitive tender. Imagine that - companies falling over each other to supply something as dull as that. No, wait, even worse - imagine police forces employing people precisely to conduct procurement activities like that...

No longer would SCs simply be cannon-fodder and the "yellow jackets" that we're all assured that we want. Instead, Specials would have to be provided with specific tasks, objectives and - as a consequence - be in the position to demand a proper training framework that suits their working hours (rather than that of the Trainers!), be allocated a proper budget for training, equipment and development and be given a management structure that would be held to account.

I really do LOVE the attitude of some SCs, though:

"I wouldn't ever be paid, nah, I'd still do it for free....being a volunteer should be just that..."

Hahahahaha. I think not. I'd bank my pension that, if a bounty was introduced, that these very people would waste no time at all in getting their bank account details to FHQ.

It's coming, crazy kids. And I can't wait.

The next time I'm sitting at some god-forbidden custody suite with Joe Nasty at 4 in the morning, I might draw a little comfort from the fact that my holiday flight is being paid for!

And why not?!

New addition

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:22:00 +0000

Cough the Lot died a death. A shame, truly.

However, I've added Bobby's Lot to my modest blog-roll. Enjoy!

The word "altercation"

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:12:00 +0000

That's "fight" to the rest of us.

And when do you hear it, boys and girls? Only EVER when some poor schmuck of a senior police officer has been pushed in front of the cameras and, whilst trying their very best to seem serious and calm, eventually come out with...

"I confirm that, er, my officers were called to an er, 'altercation' in the King's Arms at approximately 3PM today"

Please, please, stop it.

Nobody - but nobody - uses this word in conversation anymore, so why is it so frequently rolled out by officers on the television? It sounds cringeworthy at best, even more so when the officer in question has the broadest cockney accent you've ever heard.

It's like listening to someone scrape their nails down the blackboard.

Gah!

Gee, what a cute puppy, Mister, Part II

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:10:00 +0000

Hahaha!

"Police have warned of a growing street culture of owning dangerous dogs and their increasing use as weapons in crime", reported Radio Five Live on Sunday 11 February.

Someone YOU know was talking about this in May of last year, here....maybe I should join the police or something. Oh, hang on...

Ah, so THAT's where the unrest comes from!

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:55:00 +0000

Peter Hain has pointed the fingure of social unrest, ASB and resentment here.

Not, as you might imagine, successive Government's deliberate policies in denying the poorest parts of the country access to decent healthcare, education, policing, social services etc, but rather the tiny number of people in the City that earn large amounts of cash.

"A big fight ahead" he cries.

Hardly.

This sort of populist nonsense - coming ahead of the Labour leadership elections, remember, crazy kids - is little more than white noise. These people already ARE contributing more than their fair share, since they're taxed at a higher rate than the rest of us!

If he really wanted to address social issues like poverty in London, then Mr. Hain might be better asking local councils why Council Tax collection rates are amongst the lowest in the UK, why local councils fail to address the needs of their local communities in a cohesive way and why Central Government is slowly sucking in all forms of power to Whitehall, making it very difficult to implement policy.

The very idea that the UK will be plunged into chaos by an October Revolution style uprising by the masses on account of stuff like this is a nonsense.

As Victoria Wood once said, the only time there would be a civil uprising in this country would be if they banned car boots sales and caravanning...

Feedback on comments

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:17:00 +0000

I was thinking about this carefully the other day.

Comments are a hugely important part of the whole blog experience. Not only for me to listen and respond to comments, but for people to interact.

However, I'm very concious that I haven't replied to some questions - some of them very specific - which has two effects. Firstly, people won't think that I bother to read them and secondly, it dulls the interactive nature of these things.

Blogs should evolve. They should respond to people's experiences and questions. Otherwise, it's little more than a man on a soap box spouting and ranting to any bugger who happens to pass by. So, I'm currently gathering them all together and will comment on, the, er, comments...

God, I'm feeling articulate this morning.

Boom!

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:15:00 +0000

My PC died.

No, I haven't been asked to stop writing this. No, I haven't got bored of it...I kinda met someone *blushes* and have been busy with, er, other things.

Tee hee.

The veil! The veil!

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:40:00 +0000

I'm not going to have a long discussion on the rights and wrongs of the veil.

Only that I'm sick and tired of hearing about it all. Right now, if I were a Jew, or Hindu, I'd be feeling pretty underloved. News articles regarding muslims - remember, kids, 3 (that's "three") percent of the population at the last UK Census - seem to occupy over 90% of the airtime right now.

What's worse, all this fuss is playing right into the hands of extreme right-wings groups like the BNP. Come the next election, they're going to LOVE all the coverage that the press has been circulating in the past two months. And in areas such as Manchester, or East London, that really could be grave news indeed.

Still, at least the Police haven't forgotten about it all. The recent guidance to GMP Officers as regards serving arrest warrants for Muslim offenders during Holy Month will have done little more than to encourage the "them and us" culture and division.

Divide and rule? No.

It's turning into "divide and watch you back for every other group that's seeking to exploit an issue".

Why aren't you out catching real criminals?

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:33:00 +0000

This, for me, is possibly the start of the most mind-numbingly dull conversation that you can have with anyone that you're dealing with.

From their perspective, it's not "OK" to be speaking with them about, say, an assault on a bus-driver, or about being drunk and disorderly, or why it's not appropriate to call a shop-keeper a "fucking Turkish cunt".

No, because out there are the murderers, rapists and paedophiles (all gay, naturally) who - as your detained person will tell you - are on every street corner, on every train and in every school playground.

I long gave up trying to speak any sense to these people. More often than not, it's quite clear that they haven't the presence of mind to think through what they're actually saying and, on a more practical basis, have usually got several pints of lager flowing through their body.

Given the strength of evidence linking violent crime and public order offences to more serious ones committed later in life, I for one don't give a monkeys that Specials up and down the country have to get stuck in to any number of tedious Public Order and Domestic offences that are - in frequency - astronomically larger than any offences of the serious variety.

In many respects, I don't actually see that the Service will ever get it right when it comes to meeting the needs of society. To be clear, I don't see that as a failing on the part of the Police per se; rather, that we seem to try far too hard to be all things to all people. I can't see that being sustainable in the long-term. Trying to please everyone never works.

But then what you are left with is a "compromise" - i.e. the situation where all parties have to give up some ground leaving none of them particuarly happy with the outcome.

Which is worse...I'm not entirely sure yet.

But, sticking to the present - Peter "Fives Pints" McStupid can argue the toss all he wants. Perhaps he and I could discuss it the next time we're driving an hour to get to the nearest custody unit with a free cell.

Internet nonsense

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:27:00 +0000

I have resolved to either a) keeping this thing more up-to-date or b) binning it in the New Year.

I've always been of the mind to only post when I've had something to say, but even when I have, it's not been easy with work and other stuff going on in my life to give this any proper attention.

So, "sorry", for the lack of content of late. One way or the other, I'll turn it 'round.

Especially now that it's "OK" for a certain Welsh Chief Constable to 'Carry On Blogging'.

Hurrah and huzzah with big brass knobs on. As it were.

P.S. I've binned some the links. Where is everyone going?!

The most ridiculous headgear known to Mankind

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:33:00 +0000

Behold, visitors, the most stupid, STUPID hat you have even seen in your life.

I've real arguments with people over this, and the arguments go like this:

The Pro Camp.

The Police Helmet is the singular vision of the continuity of standards in British Policing that Sir Robert Peel held. It is an instantly recognisable icon all over the world that represents tradition, moral standards, integrity and ingrained values. We should never lose this unique piece of uniform lest we loose our sense of purpose and identity.

The Anti Camp.

The police helmet is the singular vision of someone who clearly never had to walk the streets of the UK in all weather and be the constant source of derision by the public. In addition, they have clearly never had a roll-around with some drunken idiot in an enclosed space, or ever had to give foot-chase to someone. Indeed, had they had to have done so, they would have realised that this ridiculously heavy, miniature oven that male PCs keep balanced on their heads in order, presumably, to make them sweat and accelerate their hair-loss, is the very first thing that is taken off at the first sign of trouble and thrown aside like a dirty rag. Die, helmet, die! I long for my flat cap that is far more practical, smart and doesn't make you look like a complete tit. Tradition, my arse. Witch-hunting and badger-baiting was once a tradition in this country. We got rid of that when we realised it was a load of rubbish. Let's wake up to this unique horror, please!

How long does it take for a Probationer to turn sour?

noreply@blogger.com (okyepwhatever) — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:10:00 +0000

Hmm. A toughie, this one.

I was only thinking about this today since I saw a chap that I haven't seen for about six months, and that was on his very first shift. And it was like he'd been in the job for about five years. What I mean by that is that he'd aged massively, had not a single good word to say about the Management, could tell be exactly how many days off he had left this year and knew how many days (read "days!") until his probation period was up and he could transfer to another Force.

Horrific, isn't it? A bright-eyed, bushy-tailed (and frankly, damn fine figure of a man) PC reduced to a slouching, tired shell of a person. It was quite disappointing to see that the "Job" had done to him what it had to so many probies (probationers) that I've seen pass through the station.

What is it that does this to a man?

Well...in no particular order of importance.

The job can cancel your rest days almost on a whim and at VERY short notice
The job takes little to no notice of any personal life you may (or may not) have outside of work
The job expects you to be able to cope with several really, really, tedious shifts guarding the scene of a major crime for nine hours a time without resenting it or being bored
The job expects that uniformed PCs feel totally subservient and inferior to anyone that doesn't work in the core response teams. That even includes plain-clothes PCs working on "proactive" (read "able to read the Mirror and turn the radios off whilst on duty, since they're 'busy' with other work") squads
The job expects you not to wish for your paycheque to be correct and to be credited to the correct bank account every pay day
The job expects that you will still respond positively to being treated like a child for the first two years of your service

So...how long, then? My estimate is "three months post being signed off as independent". A horrifically short time, no? Still, it's long enough for people to be sufficiently tied into the service that they won't leave for a while.

You'd think it was a conspiracy...