And the principle source of embarrassment, surely, is not so much that the police didn’t understand the proper application of the covid regulations - but that the women did.
1 Like
It’s pretty common that law breakers know the law better than law enforcers
Not that the women were breaking the law , it’s an observation
is that why Police, particularly in motor stops ask you “why do you think I stopped you?” to which lawyers will suggest you say “no officer, perhaps you can tell me” and not to potentially incriminate yourself by further discussion at that stage… 
1 Like
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Although you may be looked upon more sympathetically if you don’t admit blatant disregard for the law of the land
my reference to Sarah Everard was not concerning the protests but the sub-standard administration in the Met and the rush to fill posts with unsuitable candidates which I am certain you are correct about - there are a significant percentage of good officers who sweated blood to get in the force for all the right reasons who are mortified by the bad apples (pun intended, in case you ask) bobbing up the surface.
But the underlying question still remains - why did the Tory Govt (specifically from TM’s time at the HO) cut Policing so much to the bone and why are they lying now about how they have restored Police numbers when the opposite is true?
It is rotten to the core - perhaps its the system that created this monster and some of its leadership are to blame. The two ex-commissioners I mentioned were good coppers’ coppers leading from the front. The last few have been weak and ineffective pen pushers who, very much like the Government itself, have led by poor example and principles.
In my opinion, of course
It isn’t rotten to the core, that would be to denigrate thousands of hardworking officers. I’m not blind to the problems - what idiot thought it a good idea to taser a wheelchair bound 93 year old? That terrible cliché about a “copper’s copper” is meaningless. Who can say what type of character can best manage an enormous entity like the Met?
1 Like
IIRC it came from Met officers themselves
Following the High Court ruling - now come the claims against the police…
This is the point I made above - that the police didn’t say they were unsure about the application of the covid regulations, but continued to insist for months that they were right and the women were wrong:
Rachel Harger, a solicitor at Bindmans, who is representing Al-Obeid, said: “The Metropolitan police’s efforts to double down on their attempts to legitimise their policing operation and conduct in and around the Clapham Common vigil is entirely unsurprising, but the fact that they have continued to do so under immense public scrutiny and criticism further illustrates that this is a police force that believes it should be able to act with impunity.
1 Like
Geof, this has been the case over the last 10 - 15 year. The Joe on the street does know english law better than the rozzers of present, this is highlighted in TV reality programmes and You-tube videos over and over again. The rozzers would rather send 5 cars to someones house because Joe soap called his neighbour a bellend than to a murder scene.
Policing these days is an embarassment wherever in the UK one cares to look.
1 Like
1 Like
I must say I was shocked by the recent revelation by Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of constabulary, that ‘a suspect is charged in only 4% of thefts and 3.7% of house burglaries’.
It’s pretty well recognised, I think, that the most important deterrent is the likelihood of getting caught (not the severity of the punishment).
1 Like
The Police seem devoid of good thief takers these days… far too busy with “soft” stuff which requires little skill and resources.
2 Likes
And you know this how?
1 Like
I think that was answered by @Geof_Cox in his useful post above if you care to read it - and from a reliable source it seems… The Chief Inspector of Constabulary no less (unless of course you think he too doesn’t know his job but retired plod know better)
The impression you give is that they have choice. “Shall I deal with this bullying post on Twitter or go to the burglary?”
I’m not sure it has changed much. Too few officers means lots of reporting crime and little investigation.
I expect the number of recordable offences has greatly increased also.
was that to me or in response to the post by @rocam
with fewer resources (manpower as well as financial) with which to tackle increasing crime at all levels that’s hardly surprising, is it.
Fewer “boots on the ground” and all that entails. I’m almost sure that in your heyday of Policing, there was less riding around in cars and more real presence on the streets with the likelihood of an officer turning the corner and seeing something taking place - or about to - was good crime prevention in itself.
1 Like
An interesting area of policing. I joined quite late in life and when I was posted to a beat I walked it. The younger officers jumped in a Panda and as a result often got more work than I did as they got to the calls . Not much happens in the streets of Sidcup and Bexley. I think someone once calculated the chances of a police officer coming across a crime. I’m sure it was about once every five years. I did once come across someone urinating in a shop doorway. He was so alarmed at seeing a uniformed officer that he put his todger away but couldn’t stop peeing. That seemed like sufficient punishment to me. Unfortunately if I had arrested him I would probably have spent the next three or four hours doing paperwork in the nick. Waste of resources.
1 Like
Good call though imo… I bet he didn’t do that again in a hurry and the Panda boys would have missed it
To add: You’ll probably never know the extent of your contribution to pro-active policing by pounding the beat and the amount of crime you probably prevented by your very presence (or the threat of it) except by the figures attesting now to the increase in domestic crimes, burglaries, theft from persons etc much of which is probably “massaged” to make the cuts to Police look attractive for the unknowing/uncaring Daily Basketcase readers.
Fundamentally, there was nothing wrong with the old beat system - a mix of responses to maintaining public order both pro and reactive in nature.
The Bobbly on the beat was an important part of intelligence gathering maintained by collators at a local station level. I remember as a local councillor the removal and closure of our village bobby and his station house (which was sold off). Crime at every level in the village increased disproportionally to the increase in housing in the village at the same time and was only replaced by the occasional drive-by from a Panda.
Of course it costs money to Police effectively but like all the civil service and NHS cuts being imposed, the Country is the worse off for it.
Shameful behaviour by a shameful administration - and it will get worse.