Caused memories to come flooding back. Shiny new Probationer doing bus lane and yes, standing at / behind the bus stop. Not an air hostess but a very lovely nurse in an old mini (car, not skirt!) on the way home after nights and genuinely apologetic... well what do you think?
As always your anecdotes, critique and story telling hit the mark and cause much hilarity as well as serious reflection. I wonder why on earth with your common sense and sagacity you never made Commissioner?
Me? Promoted? I remember my first Supt in SB saying to me in the pub, "your problem is you're a bit of a thinker. I didn't get to where I am today by thinking!"
Great read. Chuckling to myself all the way through. My first posting was AD. I had to do my quota of tickets as you say. I used to stand on the corner of Parliament Sq and Whitehall, watch cars crawl through red lights, then walk up to stop and speak to them. There was so much traffic it was that easy. On one occasion, a white van did a horrendous red light (at less than 20mph). I walked up intending to give words of advice, before i could say anything he mouthed off “alright, cut the sh*t and just give me the f***ing ticket”. I said to him “ i wasn’t going to but as you insist”. He refused to sign so i threw it in through his window. At Bow St he FTA, got fined and banned for 6 mths. All because he failed the attitude test. 🤣🤣
I look forward to your posts. This post reflects my views and in the main I am on the same page as you. Patrol provides the foundations for a good detective including dealing with victims, those you are confused, angry resolving conflicts in evidence, understanding crime scenes etc
Direct entry Detectives is dangerous.
Good collars are felt by traffic stops like the Yorkshire Ripper.
The speed camera van proliferation alienates the public. The reality is it is the law abiding insured members of the public who get tickets not criminals in unregistered pool cars or cloned cars. Those penalised are future jury members, witnesses to crime and informants likely to pick up the phone and reports suspicious activity such as burglars on premises. Alienating this huge tranche of the public impacts on Police effectiveness.
Once again, nail on the head. My experience slightly different, two weeks with an old sweat,,no tickets or cameras, but we did have a plethora of 20+ year officers driving the van, the two Area cars and most of the pandas. Us probs would get "doubled up" , or act as observer on the Area Car (still referred to as the wireless car by the older drivers), a meaty, Zircon Blue Rover 3.5l V8 P6 . Occasionally you would get a tour as 'operator ', operating the radio, and keeping the log book, in it's wooden frame, up to date with all calls to the division, 'all cars,' calls, arrests, stops, searches, in fact any and everything we did. You got to all the best calls first, the occasional chase of a stolen car, and leaving things to the pandas or foot soldiers if the call wasn't up much, by dint of inventing an urgent call on the 'main set',as the non-area car officers weren't able to receive those calls! But the very best bit, usually,, was working with the very best, most experienced officers at the nick. Sorry, Dom, got sidetracked down memory lane! Keep 'em coming.
My goodness Dom. This. Absolutely. People (students) think I’m a dinosaur when I bang on about doing some traffic stops. You find offences and offenders. Most criminals are recidivists and traffic compliance isn’t high on their agenda.
Is the car with 4 bald tyres higher risk than the Facebook threats job? Probably, but officers generally go to what they are directed. This gets missed. A lot. I recently did a statement for a serious court job from a traffic stop and intel submission from 18 years ago. Says it all.
I totally agree with you about the importance of those first few years to understand what the role of a police officer actually is in practice, as opposed to the theory of policing, and that basically comes down to discretion and only 'sticking on' those that merited it.
What is is that prompts police officer to take positive action in minor criminal infringements and or traffic offences? My belief is that in these types of cases, officers are able to distinguish between those who are and who are not 'taking the piss....' A simple but effective means of using officer's time and powers for the benefit of the public at large, rather than using a scatter gun approach used by camera 'detections'.
I also have serious concerns regarding the limited access that officers currently have to the court process. I learnt the basics of my job as a detective in the Met by taking my own (and other officer's cases) to court and seeing the role of the Court together with that of the defence brief. This was true of the Magistrates Court where the stipendiary Magistrates insisted on officers being ready - whether for a guilty plea or an adjournment and any bail application. Similarly, at Crown Court I learnt what the prosecution brief needed and perhaps more importantly, what the defence brief required from me in order for the case to progress. During not guilty trials I saw my own witnesses being cross examined and saw how the defence challenged my case preparation when putting their clients case to the jury......this was the same for all my colleagues in that pre-CPS era. The result was that when investigating an allegation I was aware of where the defence would be likely to look to create sufficient doubt and would adapt my investigation accordingly...i.e. trying to answer their probable questions when preparing witness statement, before they were actually asked....
Before anyone suggests I was coercing witnesses etc, this was not the case......the purpose of the investigation is to try and establish whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to justify a prosecution, the trial process is where the defendant through their legal team is given the opportunity to test that prosecution evidence and when required, to test the procedures and legality of the measures used to obtain that evidence.
As a result, I prepared my own cases and those I supervised with the defence in mind.....It is the defence brief who has the biggest say in how a prosecution is going to progress and my objective was to put them in a position where their advice to the client would be 'Plead Guilty'. Whether their client took that advice, was out of my control, but I was aware that if the papers I put forward did not at least prove the case on paper, the defence advice would ALWAYS be 'Plead Not Guilty'.
It was evident to me as a supervisor post CPS(1986) , that new officers struggled to understand what their role was when investigating anything that may have had the potential to end up in Court - traffic and criminal - and were unaware of the difference between 'knowing' someone was guilty and 'proving' someone was guilty and the difference between an "Investigation' and a 'Trial'.
On going to Surrey Police post retirement in 2003 I found the knowledge/understanding/nous of most officers and their supervisors who had joined after 1986 was also seriously compromised by what I termed 'Institutionalised ignorance.....' Officers tended to have an over reliance on issuing tickets.....and then not providing sufficient/any evidence in support of what it was they were alleging..... and did the management care....?
I also fail to understand how officers can carry out a professional investigation and recording of the evidence into an admissible and comprehensive format without understanding what happens at Court and how the CPS, the defence and the Courts operate and what they each require from each other and officers/police. I am even more at a loss to understand how officers can properly assimilate and deal effectively with the requirements of the CPIA (unused material) without having a proper understanding of how the CPS, defence and Courts work and what their specific roles are within the Criminal Justice System.......otherwise their work is basically no more than an 'educated guess.'
Great article, most of what I think already said by others. My point would be, do others think as I do that part of the issue is that the senior management seem to be ‘compartmentalising’ police work where it shouldn’t be? I think that police officers should be multi skilled. That’s investigation, patrolling, interviewing suspects and witnesses, dealing with suspects in custody and developing that holistic approach to The Job that we all should have had.
We have got to the stage where areas are being divorced from others unnecessarily. I was never a fan of the ‘Crime Processing Units’ that were introduced a few years before I retired. Officers did not interview their suspects and never learned how to ‘close down’ defences in their legitimate questioning pre and post arrest. Notes became worse than ever. I used to refer to ‘arrest and forget’ mentalities.
The introduction of FPNs and decriminalisation of many RTA offences also means that officers have little courtroom experience, as Dom says. I had a DC who was traumatised by being cross examined in Crown Court… it was the FIRST time in five years Service she had seen the inside of a court! I had used up four cards of court dates by the end of my first year - (1988) - mostly traffic stuff of course.
Senior officers also seem unable to see the connections between different areas. There was an active burglar on Paddington once. One DC tried to get him every which way to no avail. In the end he got a uniform, kept stopping him for traffic offences, got him disqualified, (yes, it was a long term solution!) and in the end put him away for driving whilst disqualified. Stopped him burgling for six months at least. A good example of an officer using his knowledge of the possible to achieve the desired outcome.
To me PCSOs were a bad idea . Please note my next lines are aimed at the idea of PCSOs not individual ones. They became ‘patrol wardens’ and uniform officers seemed to think that they didn’t need to patrol in uniform. Supervisors took the opportunity to team up warranted officers in cars to answer calls… reducing, in my view, the utility of uniform officers who became a form of ‘fire brigade’ for crime. I remember talking to a “spare” team to make enquiries at second hand shops on the borough and being told by a PC that it was ‘PCSO’ work… guess how well that tasking was done? Another PC vouchsafed to me once he had no time for the public at large…
The latest is custody, an area that is largely privatised in some services, but not yet the Met, I believe? As gaoler I had a real education in active criminals and what they looked like. It was invaluable. I am not a ‘super-recogniser’ and personally a photograph does zip for me, but if I see a person in the flesh, their appearance, mannerisms, dress, build, then that is there forever, and I will recognise that person. Now there are rarely PC gaolers. Or they are ‘permanent’ staff in suites, so completely wasted.
No disrespect to our Detective colleagues, but it has to be said when they get promoted they sometimes don’t appreciate uniforms have a PREVENTIVE role. They aren’t alone there. It’s a function that can’t really be measured, and doesn’t clearly show up in graphs that can be used to make oneself look good at ‘Crimefighters’ meetings. Now some ‘Tecs really DO get it, but I know many who considered Safer Neighbourhoods a complete waste, and in my experience COD seemed to find it easier to get promoted to high ranks, where they are able to make decisions that affect everyone.
Of course, as ever, these are often government driven initiatives intended to save money. Thus you get politicians saying they are hiving off functions ‘to allow PCs to do their job’. Well, unfortunately some of those ARE core functions actually, and we lost something when PCs stopped doing them.
If anyone thinks I am way off base here please let me know.
Of course the attitude test existed in all aspects of law enforcement, not just traffic offences. Each and every officer had a different level of tolerance which made life interesting/difficult for those pushing the legal boundaries! Dealing with potential or actual conflict (mostly verbal but not always) is an essential part of learning the job. Those officers who didn’t or wouldn’t engage ended up as radio ops or schools liaison etc.
I was a traffic cop in three ranks during my service and my motivation was not process numbers but road safety. Dealing with death and serious injury on the roads is a sobering and serious topic which shaped my thinking. I see the reduction in policing of the road network as a backward step. I also chaired a Safety Camera Partnership for some years, our focus was on sights involving serious or fatal collisions. Many civilian operators and some police didn’t understand why, to them numbers equalled success.....
Another thought provoking article Dom, wit or whit or just twit!
Another well thought and thought provoking article. I’m totally in agreement in everyone starting with the basics and doing a full probation. It was such an intense learning curve as a probationer in StokeNewington and attending two different courts had you on your toes with either a Stipe or Bench each looking for something different. I always watched other officers giving evidence as I sought to gain the best way of moving things forward. This learning took place all through my service and I still try and learn from others today. Having parachuted in a few places where my experience should have put me in charge I still watched and learnt why things were being done as they are rather than my way. Usually watching and listening helped me fit in and in turn introduce new ideas to them.
So many memories came back reading this and many stories Is forgotten returned to make me laugh out loud at some antics that wouldn’t pass muster today. Please keep these excellent articles coming.
Dom, Spot on, I agree with the sentiment completely. I think the officers who arrested Sutcliffe, were a skipper and a probationer from the local nick, N/D in a panda, the mobile equivalent of puppy walking.
Brought back quite a few memories. I joined in 76, however I didn't take to traffic offences, I found I had a talent, if you call it that of finding offenders, offending.
My arrest rate was high enough to negate my lack of process books, as we called them then.
One thing I note Dom is the term Traffic Rats, although I wasn't a Met officer, we always understood they were called something else in the old days, has that now surrendered to PC ?
No, 'Black Rats' was and probably still is a term used by old Bill. I understand it was due to their old black motorbike capes / gear back in the day. The stickers you see are still called a Black Rat stickers. I just use the term 'traffic rat' to help non-police readers know who I'm talking about!
Glorious. Brings back wonderful memories of the IPSoP - Independent Police State of Penge. And I’ll avoid the obvious pedant trap set for closet rats or defectives 😎
Caused memories to come flooding back. Shiny new Probationer doing bus lane and yes, standing at / behind the bus stop. Not an air hostess but a very lovely nurse in an old mini (car, not skirt!) on the way home after nights and genuinely apologetic... well what do you think?
As always your anecdotes, critique and story telling hit the mark and cause much hilarity as well as serious reflection. I wonder why on earth with your common sense and sagacity you never made Commissioner?
Me? Promoted? I remember my first Supt in SB saying to me in the pub, "your problem is you're a bit of a thinker. I didn't get to where I am today by thinking!"
So did you see the nurse again Dicky ? 😉😘
Great read. Chuckling to myself all the way through. My first posting was AD. I had to do my quota of tickets as you say. I used to stand on the corner of Parliament Sq and Whitehall, watch cars crawl through red lights, then walk up to stop and speak to them. There was so much traffic it was that easy. On one occasion, a white van did a horrendous red light (at less than 20mph). I walked up intending to give words of advice, before i could say anything he mouthed off “alright, cut the sh*t and just give me the f***ing ticket”. I said to him “ i wasn’t going to but as you insist”. He refused to sign so i threw it in through his window. At Bow St he FTA, got fined and banned for 6 mths. All because he failed the attitude test. 🤣🤣
Dom,
I look forward to your posts. This post reflects my views and in the main I am on the same page as you. Patrol provides the foundations for a good detective including dealing with victims, those you are confused, angry resolving conflicts in evidence, understanding crime scenes etc
Direct entry Detectives is dangerous.
Good collars are felt by traffic stops like the Yorkshire Ripper.
The speed camera van proliferation alienates the public. The reality is it is the law abiding insured members of the public who get tickets not criminals in unregistered pool cars or cloned cars. Those penalised are future jury members, witnesses to crime and informants likely to pick up the phone and reports suspicious activity such as burglars on premises. Alienating this huge tranche of the public impacts on Police effectiveness.
Please keep up the good work.
Once again, nail on the head. My experience slightly different, two weeks with an old sweat,,no tickets or cameras, but we did have a plethora of 20+ year officers driving the van, the two Area cars and most of the pandas. Us probs would get "doubled up" , or act as observer on the Area Car (still referred to as the wireless car by the older drivers), a meaty, Zircon Blue Rover 3.5l V8 P6 . Occasionally you would get a tour as 'operator ', operating the radio, and keeping the log book, in it's wooden frame, up to date with all calls to the division, 'all cars,' calls, arrests, stops, searches, in fact any and everything we did. You got to all the best calls first, the occasional chase of a stolen car, and leaving things to the pandas or foot soldiers if the call wasn't up much, by dint of inventing an urgent call on the 'main set',as the non-area car officers weren't able to receive those calls! But the very best bit, usually,, was working with the very best, most experienced officers at the nick. Sorry, Dom, got sidetracked down memory lane! Keep 'em coming.
My goodness Dom. This. Absolutely. People (students) think I’m a dinosaur when I bang on about doing some traffic stops. You find offences and offenders. Most criminals are recidivists and traffic compliance isn’t high on their agenda.
Is the car with 4 bald tyres higher risk than the Facebook threats job? Probably, but officers generally go to what they are directed. This gets missed. A lot. I recently did a statement for a serious court job from a traffic stop and intel submission from 18 years ago. Says it all.
Dom,
I totally agree with you about the importance of those first few years to understand what the role of a police officer actually is in practice, as opposed to the theory of policing, and that basically comes down to discretion and only 'sticking on' those that merited it.
What is is that prompts police officer to take positive action in minor criminal infringements and or traffic offences? My belief is that in these types of cases, officers are able to distinguish between those who are and who are not 'taking the piss....' A simple but effective means of using officer's time and powers for the benefit of the public at large, rather than using a scatter gun approach used by camera 'detections'.
I also have serious concerns regarding the limited access that officers currently have to the court process. I learnt the basics of my job as a detective in the Met by taking my own (and other officer's cases) to court and seeing the role of the Court together with that of the defence brief. This was true of the Magistrates Court where the stipendiary Magistrates insisted on officers being ready - whether for a guilty plea or an adjournment and any bail application. Similarly, at Crown Court I learnt what the prosecution brief needed and perhaps more importantly, what the defence brief required from me in order for the case to progress. During not guilty trials I saw my own witnesses being cross examined and saw how the defence challenged my case preparation when putting their clients case to the jury......this was the same for all my colleagues in that pre-CPS era. The result was that when investigating an allegation I was aware of where the defence would be likely to look to create sufficient doubt and would adapt my investigation accordingly...i.e. trying to answer their probable questions when preparing witness statement, before they were actually asked....
Before anyone suggests I was coercing witnesses etc, this was not the case......the purpose of the investigation is to try and establish whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to justify a prosecution, the trial process is where the defendant through their legal team is given the opportunity to test that prosecution evidence and when required, to test the procedures and legality of the measures used to obtain that evidence.
As a result, I prepared my own cases and those I supervised with the defence in mind.....It is the defence brief who has the biggest say in how a prosecution is going to progress and my objective was to put them in a position where their advice to the client would be 'Plead Guilty'. Whether their client took that advice, was out of my control, but I was aware that if the papers I put forward did not at least prove the case on paper, the defence advice would ALWAYS be 'Plead Not Guilty'.
It was evident to me as a supervisor post CPS(1986) , that new officers struggled to understand what their role was when investigating anything that may have had the potential to end up in Court - traffic and criminal - and were unaware of the difference between 'knowing' someone was guilty and 'proving' someone was guilty and the difference between an "Investigation' and a 'Trial'.
On going to Surrey Police post retirement in 2003 I found the knowledge/understanding/nous of most officers and their supervisors who had joined after 1986 was also seriously compromised by what I termed 'Institutionalised ignorance.....' Officers tended to have an over reliance on issuing tickets.....and then not providing sufficient/any evidence in support of what it was they were alleging..... and did the management care....?
I also fail to understand how officers can carry out a professional investigation and recording of the evidence into an admissible and comprehensive format without understanding what happens at Court and how the CPS, the defence and the Courts operate and what they each require from each other and officers/police. I am even more at a loss to understand how officers can properly assimilate and deal effectively with the requirements of the CPIA (unused material) without having a proper understanding of how the CPS, defence and Courts work and what their specific roles are within the Criminal Justice System.......otherwise their work is basically no more than an 'educated guess.'
Great article, most of what I think already said by others. My point would be, do others think as I do that part of the issue is that the senior management seem to be ‘compartmentalising’ police work where it shouldn’t be? I think that police officers should be multi skilled. That’s investigation, patrolling, interviewing suspects and witnesses, dealing with suspects in custody and developing that holistic approach to The Job that we all should have had.
We have got to the stage where areas are being divorced from others unnecessarily. I was never a fan of the ‘Crime Processing Units’ that were introduced a few years before I retired. Officers did not interview their suspects and never learned how to ‘close down’ defences in their legitimate questioning pre and post arrest. Notes became worse than ever. I used to refer to ‘arrest and forget’ mentalities.
The introduction of FPNs and decriminalisation of many RTA offences also means that officers have little courtroom experience, as Dom says. I had a DC who was traumatised by being cross examined in Crown Court… it was the FIRST time in five years Service she had seen the inside of a court! I had used up four cards of court dates by the end of my first year - (1988) - mostly traffic stuff of course.
Senior officers also seem unable to see the connections between different areas. There was an active burglar on Paddington once. One DC tried to get him every which way to no avail. In the end he got a uniform, kept stopping him for traffic offences, got him disqualified, (yes, it was a long term solution!) and in the end put him away for driving whilst disqualified. Stopped him burgling for six months at least. A good example of an officer using his knowledge of the possible to achieve the desired outcome.
To me PCSOs were a bad idea . Please note my next lines are aimed at the idea of PCSOs not individual ones. They became ‘patrol wardens’ and uniform officers seemed to think that they didn’t need to patrol in uniform. Supervisors took the opportunity to team up warranted officers in cars to answer calls… reducing, in my view, the utility of uniform officers who became a form of ‘fire brigade’ for crime. I remember talking to a “spare” team to make enquiries at second hand shops on the borough and being told by a PC that it was ‘PCSO’ work… guess how well that tasking was done? Another PC vouchsafed to me once he had no time for the public at large…
The latest is custody, an area that is largely privatised in some services, but not yet the Met, I believe? As gaoler I had a real education in active criminals and what they looked like. It was invaluable. I am not a ‘super-recogniser’ and personally a photograph does zip for me, but if I see a person in the flesh, their appearance, mannerisms, dress, build, then that is there forever, and I will recognise that person. Now there are rarely PC gaolers. Or they are ‘permanent’ staff in suites, so completely wasted.
No disrespect to our Detective colleagues, but it has to be said when they get promoted they sometimes don’t appreciate uniforms have a PREVENTIVE role. They aren’t alone there. It’s a function that can’t really be measured, and doesn’t clearly show up in graphs that can be used to make oneself look good at ‘Crimefighters’ meetings. Now some ‘Tecs really DO get it, but I know many who considered Safer Neighbourhoods a complete waste, and in my experience COD seemed to find it easier to get promoted to high ranks, where they are able to make decisions that affect everyone.
Of course, as ever, these are often government driven initiatives intended to save money. Thus you get politicians saying they are hiving off functions ‘to allow PCs to do their job’. Well, unfortunately some of those ARE core functions actually, and we lost something when PCs stopped doing them.
If anyone thinks I am way off base here please let me know.
No, you are completely on the money
Of course the attitude test existed in all aspects of law enforcement, not just traffic offences. Each and every officer had a different level of tolerance which made life interesting/difficult for those pushing the legal boundaries! Dealing with potential or actual conflict (mostly verbal but not always) is an essential part of learning the job. Those officers who didn’t or wouldn’t engage ended up as radio ops or schools liaison etc.
I was a traffic cop in three ranks during my service and my motivation was not process numbers but road safety. Dealing with death and serious injury on the roads is a sobering and serious topic which shaped my thinking. I see the reduction in policing of the road network as a backward step. I also chaired a Safety Camera Partnership for some years, our focus was on sights involving serious or fatal collisions. Many civilian operators and some police didn’t understand why, to them numbers equalled success.....
Another thought provoking article Dom, wit or whit or just twit!
Another well thought and thought provoking article. I’m totally in agreement in everyone starting with the basics and doing a full probation. It was such an intense learning curve as a probationer in StokeNewington and attending two different courts had you on your toes with either a Stipe or Bench each looking for something different. I always watched other officers giving evidence as I sought to gain the best way of moving things forward. This learning took place all through my service and I still try and learn from others today. Having parachuted in a few places where my experience should have put me in charge I still watched and learnt why things were being done as they are rather than my way. Usually watching and listening helped me fit in and in turn introduce new ideas to them.
So many memories came back reading this and many stories Is forgotten returned to make me laugh out loud at some antics that wouldn’t pass muster today. Please keep these excellent articles coming.
Dom, Spot on, I agree with the sentiment completely. I think the officers who arrested Sutcliffe, were a skipper and a probationer from the local nick, N/D in a panda, the mobile equivalent of puppy walking.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/100362/Byford_part_3__c_.pdf
That time of night, the ice cream selling cheese eaters were probably parked up on L/T's boozer.
Very good article, I had some super arrests through traffic stops and process leading on to major crime arrests ending up at Old Bailey.
Just a small point thinking of when I wrote out charge sheets, is it ‘to wit’ not ‘to whit?’
Great article but is it not ‘to wit’ not ‘to whit?’. Just thinking when I used to write out charge sheets.
I've seen it spelled both ways but I'll double check!
Excellent stuff as always Dom. Shaftesbury Avenue turning right into Great Windmill Street was one of our most fertile hunting grounds 🤣😉🤓
Brought back quite a few memories. I joined in 76, however I didn't take to traffic offences, I found I had a talent, if you call it that of finding offenders, offending.
My arrest rate was high enough to negate my lack of process books, as we called them then.
One thing I note Dom is the term Traffic Rats, although I wasn't a Met officer, we always understood they were called something else in the old days, has that now surrendered to PC ?
No, 'Black Rats' was and probably still is a term used by old Bill. I understand it was due to their old black motorbike capes / gear back in the day. The stickers you see are still called a Black Rat stickers. I just use the term 'traffic rat' to help non-police readers know who I'm talking about!
Fair enough, I was a bit concerned that it had fallen into the black sheep, and Guy Gibson's dog category....
Articles are brilliant, keep them coming please....stay safe.
Glorious. Brings back wonderful memories of the IPSoP - Independent Police State of Penge. And I’ll avoid the obvious pedant trap set for closet rats or defectives 😎