Genuine question for any officers on here.
Can you see that saying 'I can smell cannabis' when there is none present is so unconscionably out of order, It plays immediately to an engrained racial stereotype, confirms in the eye of the victim that the police officer is a liar, shatters all trust, makes the person fearfull not only of being stitched up but also fearfull of potential employment consequences, (especially if you are an athlete). The thought, 'how will this effect my life?' will be uppermost.
If a police officer ever says this to you you know you are dealing with a corrupt officer, they are letting you know this from the get go. So you will then proceed in the knowledge that truth and justice have just left the building. You will now be thinking of a strategy to try and get yourself out of this situation and that will now govern what you say and how you respond to the situation. Being innocent isn't good enough, telling the truth is not going to help you.
Cheers Cougar,
It was a couple of others opening up on other threads that got me thinking 'time to put my head on the block' So to speak. I get that police on here feel like they're going to get their heads chopped off but you have to balance that against the fact that many on here hadn't felt comfortable raising issues that had affected them over the years for fear of.......for fear of what exactly?
Which is quite interesting when you consider how open and supportive we generally hold this forum to be. As a rule, no topic or problem was off limits and opening up was never seen as a sign of weakness or of being whiney. In a way were kind of symbolic of the problem, on the surface a pretty liberal tolerant and caring bunch, certainly not racist. And yet recent events have revealed things that were running below the surface and always had done. A singletrack schism has appeared and its deeper than the Brexit one.
Part of me thinks that were waking up to some things that had either been hidden or had been generally felt to have been dealt with a long time ago and erhaps we are at a moment of reflection and there's an opportunity to look at things a fresh.
Then part of me thinks 'it's not rocket science is it, it's the same old shit.
To explain the stopping vehicles from out of town; it is very common practice for officers to volume check vehicles on the Police National Computer, particularly in areas that are suffering more crime than others. You would be amazed what an experienced cop will turn up by this simple policing method. That a car is out of town isn’t a massive reason to stop it it does make you look a bit closer. However, that has certain caveats. For example, the area in which you’re conducting these checks and the time of day the car is out and about. If I check a car near the university I pretty much expect it to be from out of the areas because of how many students have cars these days (I couldn’t afford a car when I was at University). But if I check a car in a rural village at 3am and it’s from the other end of the country I will virtually guaranteed try to stop it.
If a car is cruising around a known gang area and it’s not local - again it will warrant a second look. The reason? Whatever your personal experience is I can say that it still extremely rare for a car from another part of the country to be in certain areas of certain towns and cities. Yes, I’ve travelled all over the UK and Europe and been stopped less than a handful of times but if I’d dipped into certain areas then that would’ve happened more often.
This is not to bolster the excuse that was given but to merely explain that it is an extremely common policing method, which I imagine happens everywhere because of how fruitful it is in terms of catching criminals on the move (not many criminals walk to their victims).
All encounters with the Police should start in this manner and only escalate if there is no other appropriate course of action.
I massively agree with this. I deal with the upper end of conflict and have for quite some time (17 years in my current role). One of the biggest problems I face when mentoring young in service officers into my department is that they virtually always “go in” at too high a level, and then find it incredibly difficult to come down from this. It’s a psychological thing stemming from the fear of losing the upper hand (which they generally haven’t yet got). Experience is key and can only be gained with time and being allowed to make mistakes without fear of being thrown under the bus by management.
Unfortunately some just don’t get it. I try to pass on the idea that if you “go in low” you can always “go up”, but if you “go in high”, you’re already losing because it just gets folks backs up; it’s like it’s human nature to dig in and become entrenched in a view when someone is shouting at you.
By the way, I’m aware some of this could hijack the thread but I am happy to answer any specific questions anyone has, just message me.
Singletrackworld exists in its own little middle class, high disposable income, nice left wing politics environment whereas the reality of that world that you don’t have to visit is rather different…
So racist actions by the police are fine because we don't have direct experience of them.
Don’t forget; the Police don’t have the luxury of deciding not to ‘engage’; it’s their job.
They sure don't but they do have the luxury of deciding how they 'engage' and how their actions, approaches and treatment differ between races.
If there is a “great many” people having valuable input into the discussion then going “yeah but people might disagree with me” is a lame excuse for not posting.
It would be if that was the case but the usual STW twisting of words makes it a waste of time. See the whole victim blaming nonsense above. There is no dialogue, it's a bunch of people hogging the stage and dictating the narrative. How many police side points have been accepted vs non police? None. Because in the great STW tradition everyone knows someone else's job, personal experiences and perspectives better than they do.
It's a waste of time trying to engage as there is absolutely zero objectivity or any attempt to see things through other people's eyes so why would you bother? Especially with such stellar arguments as this:
Not sure what the communities respomsiblity is in all this. Why should they ‘work with Police?’
I spent 10 years promoting Drum’n bas / jungle nights in a metropolitan city and as much I’d like to have had the help of the police in creating a safe environment for clubbers, engaging with the Police on any level would have been an absolute no, no.
No, no, no.
No, no, no ,no, no.
So because it was especially shit 30 years ago we shouldn't bother engaging now. With attitudes like that no wonder change is slow and the whole policing by consent concept has gone out the window.
mildred,
I'm glad were in agreement that it's much better to go in low as that gives you more time and options in a given situation. As a Police officer your authority is a given, there's no need to demonstrate it.
If we examine the the Dawn Butler video I think we can see this principle demonstrated. The first officer goes in low and whilst he and Butler are in disagreement the exchange is polite and civil, then a second officer comes in at too high a level. Not only is this bad in itself, She also is potentially obstructing her fellow officer, she's certainly unravelling any progress that he might have made.
When we see police coming in at too high a level it is easy too assume that it is because they are aggressive or prejudiced by nature. Unfortunately sometimes this is the case, but I'd like to look at that situation from the perspective of human nature. Aggression is a result of fear, and all too often I see fear on the faces of young police who (like me) have grown up in a rural environment. After a few weeks training they find themselves policing the tough city streets. They don't recognise the environment and are neither comfortable or confident in it. They haven't got the urban savvy for the job and that often plays out in the awkward exchanges.
Going in low actually gives you more power, it shows savvy and gives nothing away, it buys time for the officer and gives time for the suspect to trip themselves up if there is anything nefarious going on. In the video the second officer ceded all the power to Dawn Butler the moment she came in over the top, the moment she started making random excuses. Up until that point it was looking like a score draw with Butler and the first officer, neither giving ground but avoiding an un-neccesarry escalation.
Experience is indeed key and I take note of your observation that young police need time and space to learn and even make mistakes with out being thrown under the bus by the bosses. Funnily enough, Being a white middle class country boy in the city myself, experience has taught me that if I do get into a confrontation where someone is trying to take advantage of my naievity or my percieved 'softness' the best response is often silence. Keep your opponent guessing and give nothing away. I had an incident only a few months ago where a youth confronted me and tried to escalate things. I just looked straight at him, said nothing and he scootered off. (Quite literally, as he was on a scooter at the time.)
With regards the successes that police stops in general might bring, for every success there will inevitably be many other stops that result in nothing but inconvenience (at the very least) for the innocent driver. There will be a resultant collateral damage. We need to ask ourselves what level of collateral damage do we find acceptable and at what point does that collateral damage do more harm than good?
Especially with such stellar arguments as this:
One of us has missed the joke 🙁
I’m glad were in agreement that it’s much better to go in low as that gives you more time and options in a given situation. As a Police officer your authority is a given, there’s no need to demonstrate it.
I'm wondering if there is an opposite point of view (misguided imo) that the police have to go in super aggressive and "control the situation", "shock and awe" and all that bs?
One of us has missed the joke 🙁
So the whole post was a joke or just the music reference?
It would be if that was the case but the usual STW twisting of words makes it a waste of time. See the whole victim blaming nonsense above.
Oh,bravo. You complain about non acceptance of arguments yet dismiss one as "nonsense". If this is indeed a waste of time, you are playing an active role in making it so.
if I check a car in a rural village at 3am
Out of interest, is random patrols in rural villages at 3am a common occurrence?
Squirelking.
When the price of engagement may be too high your not going to engage. If it puts your and others livelihood in jeapordy you're going to think twice. If the trust isn't there then the community isn't going to take a chance unilaterally. They would need to see substantial change from both the Government and the Police before they would budge an inch.
So in that respect if the community feels that engaging with the police could put them or other members of their community in jeapordy then the community bears no responsibillity. It is encumbaht upon the authorities to make the first move.
Things are slightly different on the club scene these days (at least until covid) most events have a cordon of police with sniffer dogs vetting the punters. This has the effect of dettering many people from going to the event in the first place.
As for how many police side points have been accepted versus non police, you obviously havent read any of my posts. Your post is oxymoronic, It might be that the debate is overwhelmingly critical of the police but it is a debate none the less, many side points have been considered but not, as you say 'accepted'. This could be down to the quality of your argument.
I've made it clear where I stand in this argument and have put up the barricades, I'm not budging, Im not prepared to cede any ground. If however, someone like mildred is prepared to put his hand over the barricade then I'll shake it, (or bump fists given the current circumstances).
Out of interest, is random patrols in rural villages at 3am a common occurrence?
They’re often not random. Many criminals will use country lanes, byways, unmade roads, tracks etc. To move from place to place as they know you’re far less likely to encounter the Police or get pinged by an ANPR camera. Also, rural crime is on the up as many rural communities tend to have a far softer approach to crime prevention; there are still villages where it’s common to leave the front door unlocked..!
Farm machinery is an easy target for some as well; if we hear of a Manitou telehandler or similar getting stolen, it’s often a precursor to an ATM theft. It’s no coincidence that rural village ATMs get targeted by organised groups of criminals. Easy picking with lengthy Police response times, and the equipment to carry out the attack is readily available. virtually every jCB or Manitou I’ve recovered can be started using the same key..!
Dr.J
The shock and awe thing could sometimes be the case, I think it played a role in the TSG stop of the athletes. Though as I intimated earlier and mildred referred to, lack of experience and confidence plays a big role. As well as fear, not only in relation to unfarmilliar environments but fear of sanction from superiors.
I’m wondering if there is an opposite point of view (misguided imo) that the police have to go in super aggressive and “control the situation”, “shock and awe” and all that bs?
As Inkster says I think it’s more lack of experience, both policing and life, that causes that type of thing. When I look at local response teams the most senior PC can often have no more Than 3 or 4 years service...
Without derailing this discussion the big picture is that when budgets were cut many of the forces got rid of expensive (i.e. experienced) officers - particularly in CID. Also, those who were close to retirement and were considering stopping on as either a civilian investigator or 30yrs+ were put off by the increasingly toxic and divisive atmosphere. The whole pensions debacle had people thinking “**** this“ and getting out when they could for fear of losing what they’ve worked towards.
So, couple this with the increase in extremism, domestic and international terrorism, child exploitation, human trafficking, modern slavery, cyber crime & fraud, county lines drug dealing, and not least the huge increase in knife crime a simple reshuffle of remaining staff was never going to cut it. All of the experience in investigating complex, serious and organised crime had been massively watered down. In other words CID had been decimated and we were now entering an era where complex investigations have increased exponentially. So someone had to fill the gap, which as always fell to the Police service’s lowest common denominator - local response.
Longer serving Officers moves over to Public Protection and CID type roles leaving literally no experience in response. The answer? Recruit 20,000 new officers 👍🏻. However, in a job where you can only learn your trade through experience, who is passing this experience on? Officers with little experience themselves.
So what we now find is a very young in service Police response trying their best in situations where they’re generally out of their depth, crapping themselves, and as a consequence making shaky decision at best. The “problem” is that now every time a Police Officer turns up to any job there’s generally a high number of smart phone cameras being pointed at them, which instantly causes further tension, which further affects their decision making. There is now a whole generation of Officers who are terrified to “get hands on”, because they know that it will be instantly all over social media with every mistake being discussed and dissected by “experts”. Some of this can follow them all of their service. It can impact their private and family life and it certainly contributes disproportionately to that accumulation of stress most officers experience over their service life.
Mildred, you should be part of the police PR team. The current media faces from the police are making things worse but you seem to be able to give a reasoned point of view from your side without dismissing the concerns of the victims. Thanks for writing here.
I originally said that it saddens me to hear some of the things being said - it really does, and I know it does a lot of my colleagues but as mentioned by someone else earlier, the Police Service have been abandoned.
It started in 1993 with the Sheehy report. It was resurrected in 2006 by one of its special advisors - David Cameron - who have a speech outlining his ideas for reform of the Police Service, and was then resurrected again 2011 with the Winsor report, whose findings and recommendations were basically a rewrite of Cameron’s 2006 speech.
A former Police Officer wrote:
Attacking people's pay and working conditions does not make them work harder. It doesn't make them become more effective. Creating job uncertainty doesn't make people feel valued, nor make them want to work harder either - it demoralises people and destroys their confidence.
Also just consider the level of cuts:
In the October 2010 spending
review, the Government announced that central funding to the police service in England and Wales would be reduced in real terms by 20% in the four years between March 2011 and March 2015... Forces plan to achieve... 73% of the savings by cutting the total police workforce... by 31,600 (13%) between March 2010 and March 2015. This comprises: 15,400 police officers; 13,400 police staff; and 2,900 PCSOs. Forces’ plans show that 95% of these planned workforce reductions for the whole spending review period should already have been made by March 2014’ (HMIC, 2013, pp. 14-16).
By any standards these were big cuts that will take years to recover from.
None of this is to excuse poor behaviour or poor professional standards but farming recruitment out to multi force agency staff who have little understanding of Police work, or even worse in my opinion only taking graduates (who as a generalisation come from very similar “privileged” backgrounds), or those already in the “Police family” such as specials or PCSOs (who may already have developed certain views through lack of training or guidance) is nonsense and serves the public poorly. In other words, we’re getting even further from the Peel Principle I quoted above that “the police are the public and the public are the police“. We’re incredibly far from our service being a cross section of the community we Police, and this I suspect is one of the causal issue when examining current issues such as racism.
Far from derailing the thread mildred, you're sitting in the driving seat, taking it in the direction it needs to go.
As supernova says, someone like you should be involved in police PR. I cant understand why the Police have chosen to defend the indefensible rather than call out the government's responsibility in all this.
I cant understand why the Police have chosen to defend the indefensible rather than call out the government’s responsibility in all this.
Probably because it would be quite a stretch to blame racism in the police on the government. It is not a financially related issue and is down to policies, procedures and attitudes.
They’re often not random. Many criminals will use country lanes, byways, unmade roads, tracks etc.
That may well be true, but it's an answer to a different question. You said "if I check a car in a rural village at 3am and it’s from the other end of the country I will virtually guaranteed try to stop it." If you're actively looking for someone that's a different scenario.
It'd surprise me greatly to learn that police are routinely patrolling sleepy villages at 3am 'just in case' and doing stop & search on cars that aren't local cars for local people, when I can't find a copper when I want one at noon in Manchester city centre.
Mildred, you should be part of the police PR team. The current media faces from the police are making things worse but you seem to be able to give a reasoned point of view from your side without dismissing the concerns of the victims. Thanks for writing here.
+1 to this.
Keeley,
I'm not absolving the police of racism, in individual cases, in the institutional sense and specifically (in relation to this thread), accepted police procedures and how they might perpetuate racism.
Thing is I can also recognise a lot of what mildred said with regards experienced officers leaving due to cuts and other reasons related to this Governments policy for the police, one that has left a very young and inexperienced force to deal with a very difficult environment that the Government has had a big hand in creating. Also the Government do have a say in how vehicle stops and stop and search are deployed, (even if at the moment they are saying next to nothing).The police do act at the Governments bidding, as do the CPS and the Courts, who are equally culpable in this shit storm.
I also appreciate a police officer coming on here and not offering excuses but providing some information that feeds into why the situation is so bad.
Probably because it would be quite a stretch to blame racism in the police on the government. It is not a financially related issue and is down to policies, procedures and attitudes.
I would suggest it's down to a lot of history, organisational culture at the frontline and the ivory towers of the senior management, and decisions at all levels that all added to the problem that we have now. To fix it within current budgets is a fairytale, the challenge is more about making sure if they do get more cash they start to fix the problems rather than carry on regardless.
Cougar, general patrol of rural areas is fairly common especially since the increase in rural crime As it is often seen as rich pickings. Yes, unless otherwise tasked I will patrol rural villages at all times of night and yes if there’s a car out and about I’ll check it, and if it’s not local I’ll stop it to see who is in it, whether it’s the legitimate car or a clone (increasingly common), or perform a routine docs check.
I have to say though, that I didn’t mention “Stop & Search” at any point. That’s an assumption you’ve made (as do soooooo many people) - as a Police Officer in uniform under S.163 Of the Road Traffic Act I can legally stop any vehicle on the road (including pedal cycles). If they stop, we have a chat, and if not, the chances are we’ll have a chase. However, IF on stopping the car I develop a suspicion or a belief they’re up to no good, as long as the grounds permit I will search both the car and occupants.
Also the Government do have a say in how vehicle stops and stop and search are deployed, (even if at the moment they are saying next to nothing).The police do act at the Governments bidding, as do the CPS and the Courts, who are equally culpable in this shit storm.
Absolutely do the Police act at the Governments bidding - it’s the government who write that acts of Parliament that constitute much of our law, which the Police are then duty bound to enforce (discretion aside, and sometimes woefully bad).
This is an interesting read for anyone interested in the relationship between the Coalition, Cameron then May governments, economic inequality and the Police. It also gives a little historical perspective.
interesting
In what way is it interesting?
that video is ridculous Krakue completely contradicts herself and presents no evidence whatsoever
A moment's googling and you find she is part of Turning Point UK - a Trumpist bunch of shitheads run by someone who used to work for Breitbart.
Not interesting - just a bunch of lies and clickbait. Take a look at the comments to see what sort of pondlife took the hook.
Cougar, general patrol of rural areas is fairly common especially since the increase in rural crime As it is often seen as rich pickings. Yes, unless otherwise tasked I will patrol rural villages at all times of night and yes if there’s a car out and about I’ll check it, and if it’s not local I’ll stop it to see who is in it, whether it’s the legitimate car or a clone (increasingly common), or perform a routine docs check.
I had no idea that this was something that happened on a "fairly common" basis. I thought the police were far too thinly stretched to do anything like that at antisocial hours other than responding to incidents.
blockquote>I have to say though, that I didn’t mention “Stop & Search” at any point. That’s an assumption you’ve made
Fair, poor choice of phrasing on my point. I didn't really think that through.
Cougar, general patrol of rural areas is fairly common especially since the increase in rural crime As it is often seen as rich pickings. Yes, unless otherwise tasked I will patrol rural villages at all times of night and yes if there’s a car out and about I’ll check it, and if it’s not local I’ll stop it to see who is in it, whether it’s the legitimate car or a clone (increasingly common), or perform a routine docs check.
I have lived in rural areas most of my life and have never ever seen or heard of such a thing.
I have lived in rural areas most of my life and have never ever seen or heard of such a thing.
If you haven't heard of it then it must not be happening....
Meanwhile anyone who follows a police traffic twitter account gets daily stories of people pulled over for no insurance, usually followed by two or three other offences etc
Meanwhile anyone who follows a police traffic twitter account gets daily stories of people pulled over for no insurance, usually followed by two or three other offences etc
Wow, as often as daily? In a rural vilage? At 3am?
Besides which, a PNC check will flag someone who is driving without insurance as driving without insurance, rather than them being stopped on spec simply because they're not local which is what is being asserted.
A PNC check will tell you someone, somewhere has insurance on the vehicle. It doesn't tell you that the person currently behind the wheel is licensed and insured to drive it.
That being the case they're not being "pulled over for no insurance" as BnD suggested, rather they're being found to have no insurance after being pulled over either on spec or I suppose for some other hitherto undiscovered reason.
And I'm still unconvinced that it's a commonplace occurrence for random police panda cars to be routinely bobbing about at 3am in sleepy hamlets, pulling drivers for the crime of being non-local without any other intelligence to cause them to be out on patrol looking for specific targets in the first place. I'm not entirely convinced that it'd happen in Central Manchester even.
If this is genuinely the case then it rather knocks the "under-resourced police force" argument into a cocked hat, they've clearly got more resources than they know what to do with.
I thought the police were far too thinly stretched to do anything like that at antisocial hours other than responding to incidents.
If it helps, think in IT helpdesk terms. You have lower staff levels overnight, you also have less demand and your shift can cope with one critical system outage. If you have more than one outage you'll be swamped and need to call in 3rd line support (the police are stretched so thinly there is no third line support). If you have no problems then you've got some spare time to test Microsoft's lastest patches, play Doom or surf porn.
The thin blue line is so thin that just one drunk kicking off or one nasty car crash out of a population of 100,000 people is enough to move from having spare time to overwhelmed. That's for most of England (by area), population density in London and Manchester smooths out the resourcing.
And I’m still unconvinced that it’s a commonplace occurrence for random police panda cars to be routinely bobbing about at 3am in sleepy hamlets
They aren't random police "panda cars". They're the police assigned to patrol that area. Where "that area" is often quite large. You've had multiple police officers tell you that it is common. They have no reason to lie to you.
for the crime of being non-local
Not for any crime, just to check.
any other intelligence
There is plenty of evidence pointing to long distance travelling organised criminals. Particularly in the realms of burglary and drugs. And that sort of criminal tends to work when most people are asleep (shoplifters excepted). Google "county lines" for example.
they’ve clearly got more resources than they know what to do with.
Depends if you consider fighting crime to be a waste of resources I suppose. Intelligence led policing sounds sexy but there's no substitute for hard work, especially if you don't have any intelligence (insert joke here). I would imagine just patrolling has a deterrent effect, i.e. we don't know how much crime is prevented out of fear of being caught in the act.
commonplace occurrence
I'm going to try to explain the stats again. Suppose your mountain bike has been stolen at 3am by a gang that's travelled down from Bigton to your small village. If there hasn't been a pub fight, murder or lost child then there might be a free car out patroling. And it might be in your village at the right time. If it stops a vehicle then there's (and nobody collects these stats formally, so this is a guess I've seen quoted) there's a 1 in 50 chance of catching the thief red-handed with your bike. From your perspective that's a very rare event and you'll complain that the Police haven't done anything to find your bike (and you'll also say "I've never been stopped", because you haven't).
From the officer's perspective, on the other hand, they are always in *someone*'s village and are stopping lots of vehicles, so they are catching a bike thief every night or two and it is clearly worth doing. Unless, of course, they end up being vilified on YouTube.
Like many on here I'm quite surprised by some of the details with regards police stops that have been provided by officers on here. The getting your bike nicked scenario is an interesting conundrum. I get the perspective that we all jump to criticise, saying the Police 'do nothing' to recover our bike, whilst we know that it is both low priority in relation to the resources that can be spared and that its bloody difficult to find a stolen bike.
I can also imagine that I'd be delighted if I got a call the next morning saying they've found my bike. However, if I knew that a few people had been stopped and inconvenienced in the process of recovering my bike that changes how I think about it. Having grown up in the countryside I can recognise the scenario you paint but living as I do now, in the inner city, I can how this model wouldn't work at all well.
The County Lines reference has cropped up a few times. I have three black brothers in law who live in the home counties, they're in their 40's and 50's but they all drive German whips. Having described to me the way in which Police in country towns are actively on the look out for vehicles and occupants that might fit certain descriptions makes me concerned for them.
We live in the age of the phone camera and that's not going to change, the Police are under scrutiny like never before. The public are effectively auditing the Police and this is going to precipitate change wether we like it or not. It brings to light not only incidents that relate to racism or police misconduct but the protocols of policing and the law itself. It brings to light many details that many of us hadn't thought of before, because it either didn't relate to us or didn't happen to us.
It happened to Dawn Butler though, not just this time but a few times. It happened to her friend driving a few more times more than that. It happened to the male athlete 15 times in 3 years. I think it happened to David Lammy 17 times.
But at least we now know what the Police were looking for in the back of Dawn Butlers car though. Our stolen mountain bikes! That's no dig at you ajaj, if anything its a dig at us all and how were all ready with bombers if something happens to us personally, even if we've never thought about the broader consequences for civil liberties in general and certain groups in particular.
I can also imagine that I’d be delighted if I got a call the next morning saying they’ve found my bike. However, if I knew that a few people had been stopped and inconvenienced in the process of recovering my bike that changes how I think about it.
People selected for Jurys are seriously inconvenienced in the process of crime solving, far more than people being stopped.
Are you comparing jury service to stop and search? That's one odd jump.
I don't believe jury service predominantly selects one section of society over another, though that would be interesting data to see...
A letter through the door hardly compares to being stopped by the police for the nth time and all the stress that that must cause.
