Blue Tickets

Risk, reward and the death of goodwill

Nobody has to be a firearms officer. Many less specialist roles are also voluntarily, such as response driving and public order duties

---

I’ve deliberately refrained from commenting on the specifics of the Chris Kaba case, whereby a Met firearms officer was charged with murder following a fatal shooting. Not only is the case sub judice, but plenty has been written by those more well-versed in police firearms operations than I. Although I was once an Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO), it was of the lowliest sort.

And, of course, I wasn’t there when Chris Kaba was shot.

If 25 years of policing taught me anything (to sort-of-paraphrase a famous saying), it’s that speculation has sped around the world twice before the facts have put its boots on. Now charges have been laid, this case must turn on the facts put before a jury. Nonetheless, I’ll admit to being professionally intrigued why the CPS chose a murder charge over one of manslaughter (demonstrating ‘malice aforethought’ against a police officer wearing body worn video should be interesting).

---

There are, however, wider issues at play. They usually arise after contentious police firearms incidents. The MO19 ‘blue tickets’ saga, therefore, is something I do feel able to write about - not least because the ramifications could feasibly reach beyond armed policing. Over the weekend, the Job jungle drums were going like Dave Grohl on pervitin.

So no, I’m not surprised the Met’s firearms unit (MO19) were dissatisfied with the Commissioner’s initial response, nor with the senior officers he dispatched to resolve the crisis. Yes, I’m supportive of officers who withdrew their firearms tickets. I would have, too. And, yes, I was expecting the usual suspects to misrepresent the issue as one of cops demanding a ‘licence to kill’ (they absolutely aren’t).

Coincidentally, I once wrote a counterfactual article set in the very near future, one where disillusioned police officers withdraw from voluntary duties like firearms and public order. You can read it here.

In the meantime, I extend my sympathies to all of the parties concerned, especially officer ‘NX121’ and his or her family.

---

For me, the MO19 case also highlights issues around how policing manages risk and reward in safety-critical roles. I picked up on comments made by the Policing Minister, Chris Philp MP, in an interview with LBC Radio. Mr Philp’s the MP for Croydon South, in a borough neighbouring Lambeth where Chris Kaba was shot. In it, he agreed there was ‘possibly’ a case for firearms officers to be paid more than their long-suffering patrol colleagues.

To be fair to Philp, these were off-the-cuff comments made during a radio interview. Still, I found them revealing. For starters, it shows he doesn’t understand policing, nor how officers are ‘rewarded’ for undertaking voluntary duties. Secondly, his belief armed policing is intrinsically more dangerous than other duties is, to say the least, contentious - the vast majority of injuries and fatalities on duty are suffered by unarmed response and neighbourhood officers. Who’s usually first on scene at chaotic, violent scenarios where officers are injured? It’s usually response.

Yes, armed policing is dangerous. However, statistically, unarmed policing is more dangerous. Would you rather face an angry man with (1) a baton and CS spray or (2) half a dozen highly-trained and armoured ninjas armed with rifles, pistols and shotguns? Incidentally, my personal preference would be (3) a police dog, as watching an idiot criminal trying to wrestle a ‘furry exocet’ is a thing of utter beauty.

As I commented elsewhere, Chris Philp has a degree from Oxford. He’s an ex-McKinsey Consultant. A man who ran multi-million pound business start-ups. You’d have thought he’d have an eye for detail, wouldn’t you?

If he knew his stuff, Philp would realise very few firearms officers are likely to be swayed by a couple of extra grand on the table (which will almost certainly involve an ‘agreement to carry’ clause). Sure, there are greedy, ‘coin-operated’ coppers, but they’re unlikely to be tempted by filthy lucre if opening fire routinely invites years of suspension before gripping the rail for murder.

Furthermore, there are relatively few motivational levers available for police managers to pull - most of which are coercive. Police pay and conditions are set nationally. Regional pay bargaining is verboten. For various reasons (which I’ll touch upon later) the Police Federation has traditionally been wary of skills-related pay.

Chris Philp MP suggests money might be an answer. It should be noted the 18% real-terms cut in police pay happened on his government’s watch

---

And, given what happened on MO19 last week, it might also be useful to point out to non-police readers how many critical police duties are entirely voluntary. In fact, virtually anything the average member of the public might associate with police duties (apart from actually patrolling, arresting people and investigating crime) turns on goodwill.

Which is why I ask - does the ‘Blue Tickets’ saga represent a Rubicon being crossed?

Answer - yes, I think it does.

Today, it’s firearms. Tomorrow? What if police drivers or public order specialists down tools? For example, the way some police advanced drivers are treated after accidents involving pursuits involves a level of scrutiny the courts don’t apply to non-police suspects. Put it like this; the moron who initiates a dangerous police chase usually receives a slap on the wrist. But a copper who crashes and injures someone during the same chase? Police drivers follow strict pursuit management protocols, after all.

Remember, nobody can make a police officer drive a police car. Or pass the demanding advanced driving / pursuit course. Or undertake a search course (involving looking for body parts or combing rubbish tips), surveillance training or handling police dogs. Or catch paedophiles online or act as a family liaison officer in a murder case. The list goes on.

Policing also has a poisonous blame culture, in no small way fed by a clueless media, savvy activists and knee-jerk politicians like Chris Philp. Officers who volunteer to perform specialist duties feel as if they’re putting themselves on offer if anything goes wrong. Most coppers, me included, know what its like to be thrown under a bus. For some, that might involve an unwelcome career detour, a bad annual appraisal, misconduct proceedings or simply hurt feelings. For others, like firearms officers?

A murder charge.

It should also be remembered the majority of NPCC-ranking officers (but not all) are generalists. Their career trajectories demand they flit about, resulting in their (as a colleague once put it) ‘brush-contact’ with reality. As a result, relatively few have the time to develop specialist skills - after all the average training pipeline to become a CTSFO is probably two-three years after joining MO19. That’s a promotion-and-a-half in flyer years!

This, I would suggest, is a problem.

There’s a definite lack of empathy - and occasionally green-eyed hostility - from seniors who’ve only ever really talked about policing in meetings. Few have ever sat on an armed plot for hours with a Glock on their belt. There’s little portfolio evidence for promotion in such mundanity, after all. The minority who do seem to forget once they get the keys to the corporate washrooms at Scotland Yard.

And so, as policing stops being a ‘job for life’, with a cohort of poorly-paid and increasingly disillusioned officers hitting their first decade of service… will they too begin to flex their muscles with their increasingly piss-poor management?

You can’t force police officers to become detectives, undertake specialist public order training, use a taser, ride a horse, handle a dog, drive a fast car or volunteer to be Chemical, Radiological, Biological and Nuclear (CBRN) first responders

---

For the benefit of non-police readers, it’s worth addressing an uncomfortable truth; the biggest stick police managers on specialist units have is how awful local policing and (for detectives) local CID is. The most common threat? “If you don’t like it, fuck off and drive a response car.”

People spend years clawing their way out of the mire that is early, late and night shifts, or being chained to a CRIS machine and made to investigate volume crime. I genuinely wonder if its the reason why so many forces do so little to improve their lot - to have something to threaten the rest of the workforce with.

Therefore, one of the things police officers do to make their jobs more interesting is specialise. One upon a time, this was achievable working in local policing (for example, I once worked with an officer who was a part-time police marksman of the rooftop variety. Another was an occasional ‘chaperone’ who worked with victims of sexual offences. There was even a decoy officer, who went to try and get mugged on sting operations). Now, there are fewer such opportunities. The performance sausage machine demands obeisance to the Home Office Counting Rules.

To be fair, the Met’s specialist departments can behave like 1970s trade unions when it comes to protecting their empires (and I include MO19). This contraction of opportunity is partly their fault too, driven by medium-ranking officers protecting their positions and seniors looking to expand their fiefdoms. If you’re interested, I’ve written about police empire-building and internecine warfare here.

Therefore, it follows very few specialists volunteer to return to police stations (those who do are usually being punished, or transfering as a condition of promotion). MO19 officers who’ve spent years completing arduous training to become ARVOs and CTSFOs are unlikely to relish core policing duties (as the management knows only too well). This is why, after certain high-profile shootings, non-firearms officers would occasionally roll their eyes at their hitherto empty threats. There was a ritual dance; officers would claim to be on the verge of surrendering firearms tickets, a senior would be despatched to say a few warm words and then… back to business as usual.

This time? It’s different.

Enough MO19 officers followed through to impact on the Met’s operational efficacy. That’s a first as far as I can remember, and a major embarrassment for Met management. Hey, you can only kick a dog so much before it bites. For the past ten years, police officers have been virtual pariahs in the media and treated abominably by the government. Something had to give.

Therefore, as a protest - a completely legitimate protest to boot, because MO19 are all volunteers - it was effective. It garnered a great deal of media coverage. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary offered their support (for what that’s worth). Even Sir Mark Rowley, a man with little in the way of a ‘bedside manner,’ was forced to write a letter to the Home Office. He won’t like it, and he won’t forget. Nor will the bloviating senior officers who’ve been told to fuck off by angry firearms cops - yes, I’ve heard the stories too.

I wonder if the foundations of a classic Met blood feud are being laid? Cards will be marked and knives sharpened.

Sir Mark’s focus has, unsurprisingly, been on sacking bad coppers. Did he take his eye off the ball looking out for the good ones?

---

Returning to Chris Philp’s comments about renumeration, how does UK policing fairly manage role-related risk? I’d argue there are only three real levers. The rest is set in stone by police regulations. They are:

1. Overtime. Unhealthy, really, but it is what it is. Constables and sergeants are entitled to overtime and MO19 is as good place as any to earn it. In my time I occasionally rode the overtime train, so I’m hardly in a position to criticize. Nonetheless, I’ve seen coppers get into serious debt when the overtime sun was shining - then get into trouble when the overtime cloud arrived. Squaring this circle? Well good luck with that - any salaried firearms officer with an uplift in pay but no overtime is going to earn less for the same risk.

2. Not working in local policing. Sad, but true (see above). The police, during my service, tried tenure and maximum length-of-posting policies to address the problem, forcing people back to police stations. Which didn’t change the fact sending, say, an armed surveillance officer with fifteen years service and a boatload of specialist (and expensive) training to response policing doesn’t represent value for money. Furthermore, response policing is a specialism in and of itself, a job the average surveillance operator will initially struggle with (there’s no retraining for returning specialists). Hey, we could enhance the status and role of response and neighbourhood officers, but in my time that was always relegated to the too difficult tray.

3. Good Management. Reading my stuff, you might think I’ve a fiery loathing of police management. I do, but only the bad ones. Who, sadly, proliferate the higher up the ladder you travel. However, another theme of my Substack is working for good managers is a pleasure. A privilege, even. And I’ve worked for some really, really great bosses - I owe my sanity to several. Thus my antipathy towards the bad ones, because there’s no excuse. Good managers generate goodwill. They’re like a suit of armour, deflecting slings and arrows from above. They make going to work a pleasure. And, all too often, the Metropolitan Police is fucking awful at selecting and promoting them.

What constitutes ‘risk’ is too often decided by people who’ve never taken one

---

Another reason why police pay and reward mechanisms are so difficult to reform is defining what 'harm' or 'risk' really looks like? Tell the officer who spends hundreds of hours examining child abuse images their work isn't harmful? I know very brave firearms officers who wouldn't undertake those duties for all the tea in China. This is why - given the relative definitions of risk - the police has stuck with its fairly egalitarian (if not entirely logical from a market perspective) system of paying everyone the same. Many coppers take risks. All coppers can be ordered to put themselves in harm’s way, too. It’s baked into the Job.

The police, therefore, is in a reward bind. The only way to earn more is either overtime or promotion. Yes, a superintendent on a fancy project (created largely to help the superintendent make chief superintendent) is paid more than that schmuck detective working child abuse cases. Senior police salaries really are generous for what they actually do.

Now isn’t the time for a potted history of police reform (which always, and I mean ALWAYS, is about saving money). Suffice it to say Sheehy, Winsor and the rest of them came to the conclusion that police officers were over-rewarded dinosaurs, badly in need of a stiff dose of market forces. They unleashed the panoply of corporate leg-doing on the Old Bill. The mission? Cut them down to size. Save money. Because it’s just another job. Sheehy - a man who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing - even managed to whittle away at the mysterious ‘X’ factor which differentiated the police from other public sector jobs. How many shiny-arses at the department of paperclips ever found themselves in the dock at the Old Bailey?

Is money important to people who choose to take on risk-laden roles in policing? Yes and no. Fair pay and treatment is. The general erosion of pay, pensions, morale and status certainly hasn’t helped generate goodwill. If there’s a McKinsey consultant out there who can provide me with a goodwill algorithm, I’d love to see it.

Add a censorious, finger-pointing culture change from paramilitary to cuddly (I chuckled when Baroness Casey complained MO19 was too macho - I look forward to seeing how the non-macho variety performs). Throw in a hearty splash of a hostile, atrophying political system. Stir in a large splosh of an infantilised online culture, one where harm and risk are merely fuel for grievance and memes. Then cut the budget some more.

I think its the perfect recipe for disaffection. And so, one day, the blue tickets and driving authorisations and CID accreditations may be fed into a shredder. I hope not, but do you think anyone listens to me?

It’s okay though, because causing disaffection in the police is illegal. I’m sure we’ll see this legislation dusted down by the IOPC before the decade is out. Don’t worry, it’s only a two-year custodial on indictment. You’ll be out in one.

It’s nothing like a mandatory life sentence for murder, is it?

---