July 24, 2010

Peels Policing Principles-Revised

I have been tinkering. All additional suggestions are welcome.


Sir Robert Peel's original wish list:

  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
  3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
  4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
  5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
  6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
  7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
  9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
Ranty's revisions:

  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to collect revenue for the government.
  2. The inability of the police to perform their duties is independent of the public approval of police actions.
  3. Police must secure the unwilling co-operation of the public in involuntary observation of the law to be able to get away with over 1100 deaths in police custody in the last 7 years.
  4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be coerced increases proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
  5. Police seek and preserve politicians' favour by not catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to ACPO.
  6. Police use serious physical force whenever they damn well please to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when tazers are found to be insufficient.
  7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the politicians that gives surreality to the hysteric tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. [Yeah. Just give that one a try. I dare you].
  8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their lodges, and never appear to usurp the powers of ACPO.
  9. The test of police inefficiency is the abundance of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police inaction in not dealing with it.

 A little harsh, I know.

Not all coppers are bad. I know a couple of decent ones myself. The majority though, have forgotten what Peel wanted. Large numbers of them cannot tell the difference between a statute and a law. Most just want to hit their targets to keep the boss happy. Almost all have no clue that they are an extension of HMRC.

And far too many have forgotten their Oath of Office.

Such a shame.

From Peace Keeper to Armed Thug in just three decades.

Faith in our police can be restored in an instant. Do what the Irish police did: charge these bastards with treason today.

It's time to start afresh.

CR.

19 comments:

Catosays said...

'The majority though, have forgotten what Peel wanted.'


Not true I' afraid. What has happened is that a plethora of new targets, pledges, you name it coming down from the last Liebor pile of shit, made their bosses so scared of losing their outrageous bonuses, that they've forced the guy on the street to comply with crap.

Most guys out there are good blokes, all of them know what Peel wanted and most of them would have nicked that raving idiot Harwood if they'd been there.

Captain Ranty said...

If that were true Cato, the good would outweigh the bad and we wouldn't see so much crap.

Occams Razor.

CR.

Catosays said...

You see the crap because that's what the media want you to see.

Why don't you view the last three posts at Inspector Gadget concerning life saving operations and ask yourself whether you've seen those reported in the MSM?

Captain Ranty said...

I will do, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Sure Cato, all the good cops just happened to be elsewhere when Harwood should have been nicked. Half the coppers I know don't even know who Peel was.

If the police really considered themselves as members the public there would be open rebellion in the ranks instead of thuggish twats throwing their weight around arresting people for minor transgression and harassing people.

Catosays said...

Anon,
Your comment is not even worthy of a reply. However, I will say this:

Utter crap and like most armchair detectives you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking.

But then most 'Anonymous' posters haven't the courage of their convictions but are quite content to rant and rave.

Witterings From Witney said...

I can but echo the comments by Catosays and also say that whilst you, CR, believe the good should outweigh the bad, it is also fair to say that those under say the rank of Supt (Det or otherwise) probably fear for their jobs and so don't complain.

I also feel that a lot of the problems with and within the police stems from that obnoxious bunch who title themselves ACPO!

Catosays said...

CR...Further to your Peelian posting. The principles which you quote are but a bastardised and PC correct version of those written by Sir Richard Mayne
in 1829. Every copper in the Met had to learn these by heart.


Objects of Police

"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquility, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained." (Sir Richard Mayne 1829)

Attitude To Public

In attaining these objects, much depends on the approval and co-operation of the public, and these have always been determined by the degree of esteem and respect in which the police are held. Therefore every member of the Force must remember that it is his duty to protect and help members of the public, no less than to bring offenders to justice. Consequently, while prompt to prevent crime and arrest criminals, he must look on himself as the servant and guardian of the general public and treat all law abiding citizens, irrespective of their race, colour, creed or social position, with unfailing patience and courtesy.

Tact and Good Humour

By the use of tact and good humour the public can normally be induced to comply with directions and thus the necessity for using force, with its possible public disapproval, is avoided. He who in this way secures the object he has in view is a more useful police officer than his comrade who, relying too much on the assertion of his authority, runs the risk of seeing that authority challenged and possibly, for the time being, overborne. If, however, persuasion, advice or warning is found to be ineffective, a resort to force may become necessary, as it is imperative that a police officer being required to take action shall act with the firmness necessary to render it effective.

Captain Ranty said...

Cato,

I know that the principles I posted are attributed to Peel but were not his. Those principles are the ones most commonly found, so I used them.

Two points I'd like to make:

1. I have known/do know 3 coppers well. One sergeant and two constables. All in different forces. When I asked, purely off the record, natch, how they view the public, all three said, "We treat them all pretty much like the enemy". I know it's anecdotal and wholly unrepresentative, but there it is.

2. Is it purely by coincidence that over one thousand people have died in police custody in the last decade? Did they all die of natural causes? If not, why has there not been a single conviction?

There was a time when my respect for coppers had no limits.

I have needed them just once in my lifetime so far. My house was burgled and all they did was give me a crime number and advised me to "..claim off your insurance". No visit to the area, no visit to my home, no follow up, nothing.

Yet my tax bill shows that I lob them a small fortune every single year.

That will be ending soon. No service, no money.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Cato, I know that you are an ex-cop, I am sure you executed your duties fairly and in the spirit that policing was intended and can appreciate your loyalty to the force.

Since you assume that I know nothing about policing or policemen perhaps you could enlighten me instead of hurling insults.

I will happily admit I was generalising and I accept not all cops or ex-cops are / were thugs.

What is the difference between posting as "Anon" and Catosays? Can I create a blogger account as Anon?

Catosays said...

CR.
With respect to point one...it takes two to tango.

Point Two..I can't argue with your figures.

Point Three about your burglary. Did you lodge a complaint? If not you should have done. I certainly would have...and it would have been a very strong complaint too.

Catosays said...

@Anon.

Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I did try to do my job properly. I have no time whatsoever for the 'thuggish twats' (your words) who bring disgrace on the service as a whole. I have even less for the thug who assaulted Tomlinson..whether that assault was the cause of death is a moot point and one we could argue about all week, and he should have been arrested there and then. That he wasn't arrested was wrong. Why he wasn't charged immediately with Common Assault (as a holding charge) is beyond me...there was certainly enough video evidence to justify such a charge.

As to manslaughter, wiser heads than mine (and yours) have pontificated and decided. The problem, as you will know, with Criminal Law as opposed to Civil Law is that in the former there has to be no doubt whatsoever that 'A' is guilty of 'Z'. In the latter there merely has to be a balance of probabilities that 'A' is guilty of 'Z'.

You accused me of hurling insults...I was merely replying in kind.

As to posting as Anon with a blogger account...I have no idea...try it!

Lastly, I have no loyalty to me former employers whatsoever. Most current senior officers are complete arseholes. I'm just interested in portraying things fairly.

Captain Ranty said...

Cato,

No, I did not complain. Mea culpa. I told my mates at work about the break in, and three or four of them said "Yup. Same thing happened to me". I assumed from that that it was a common event. None of them complained either.

"It takes two to tango"? Are you saying here that it is okay for the bobbies to assume we are ALL the enemy?

I guess that "broad brush" technique works both ways.

CR.

Catosays said...

"It takes two to tango"? Are you saying here that it is okay for the bobbies to assume we are ALL the enemy?


Certainly not. Coppers, being human, respond to the way they are treated.
Assume they're enemies and they'll treat you as one. The converse is also true.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks for explaining. I see what you meant now.

I haven't yet had a bad experience* so I have no axe to grind.

The "self-investigating" when something goes wrong has to change.

And I don't believe anything I read in the newspapers anymore so I am not basing my thoughts on skewed reporting.

But those "deaths in custody" figures are fucking frightening.

* With a British copper. African cops are a little....different. I could tell stories here that would scare the pants off you.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply Cato, I can see where the misunderstanding came about but if you care to re-read my first post I made no reference to Tomlison's death or the charge of murder or manslaughter.

I always thought that those charges were / would have been unlikely from what I saw in the video but common assault was a no brainer and a prompt sacking for gross misconduct on conviction. Had the Met done so a lot of bad publicity may have been avoided.

As CR has stated the relationship between the police and the public has changed and not for the better. Intimidation, fear and mutual contempt is now all too prevalent. Unlike CR my family and I have personally experienced the deteriorating standards, perhaps my local force is not typical but 1 of my good friends is an Inspector nearing retirement and we have discussed this at length many times, he has few good words to say about the modern force, from the political top through fast track graduates to young officers who cannot differentiate between assertive confidence and intimidation. He hates targets with a passion and bemoans the ever growing paperwork constantly.

As far as the chicken and egg question, I have no idea who changed first, the public or the police but change it has.

Regards.

jonah said...

Cops charge Irish government with treason -

http://foolscrow.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/cops-charge-irish-government-with-treason/

Dave said...

I think that much of the problem stems from the use of Police Force, rather than Police Service. This creates the perception that the Police exist to impose Order, rather than Serve and Protect the Public.

Captain Ranty said...

Dave,

An excellent point. It is a subtle, but vital word change.

I may have found information stating that the police are not there to protect us at all, and that we cannot complain about their activities. I will be blogging on this soon.

CR.