I retired in 2008 prior to the widespread use of smart phones ( or idiot amplifiers as I prefer to call them). I don't think many people envisaged the effect these devices would have and how much extra work they would generate for law enforcement and the legal profession. One thing I noticed was that new technology was always seen by the political class as a replacement for boots on the ground, not, as Ray said a support.
I take no joy in seeing the chickens come to roost now. After the Peckham shoplifting incident I see people from all sides are calling out for a return to 'old fashioned community policing', would they be the same people who said that that method of policing was old fashioned and inefficient?
Finally I see that the policing minister has 'ordered police to run the faces of all shoplifting suspects through facial recognition systems'. No mention is made of how this will be actioned but as the govt are probably being spoken to by big retailers something will happen, still we are back to the era of everything being a priority and I fondly remember very senior officers barking that everything had to be done. Happy days for those still serving. Glad I'm out.
Another stellar piece. I could barely disagree with a word, especially the observation that those who were around a few decades ago can see the horror show of the creeping authoritarianism in a way that our children cannot. Maybe that is part of the calculation; a 40 year plan that will come to fruition when the dinosaurs die off and only those who have grown up with this intrusive technology are left. I find myself, as a natural conservative English liberal, attracted by Neil Oliver’s call for a revolution. How did that happen?
As both a fellow member of the lamp swinging fellowship and a confirmed technology fan (first worked in a computer bureau in 1969) I am somewhat conflicted by this.
I have through my involvement with PNC, CCTV and ANPR seen the massive benefits to crime prevention and detection they can bring. Even GATSO cameras were truly the most effective method of speed and traffic light enforcement.
The problem came when technology, as you said, was seen as a revenue generator and a replacement, rather than a support, for boots on the ground or behind the wheel.
Reduction in patrolling officer numbers led to less contact with the public, replaced by postal fines sent by automated systems.
Support for officers from the public has reduced significantly to be replaced by phone cameras and social media spying on every interaction in an effort to criticise or gain clicks.
Leadership has failed to get the message over to the public and has concentrated more on touchy feely than explaining the need for robust enforcement.
If this is what the public want, let them reap what they sow. But I think at least make them fully aware what that entails. That is the job of the Government and chief officers.
I agree completely Ray. The Met ANPR bureau, for example, is an amazing outfit that works intelligence miracles. They were unsung heroes on a number of jobs I worked on. It's not the technology per se. It's the people using it.
'Policing' has been deserted by the police. It's now done by any number of piecemeal organisations, including local authorities, who aren't interested in proportionality, or very experienced. And they want to make money. Taxing our behaviour is the next step, as we have seen. And that's what I'm complaining about.
I retired in 2008 prior to the widespread use of smart phones ( or idiot amplifiers as I prefer to call them). I don't think many people envisaged the effect these devices would have and how much extra work they would generate for law enforcement and the legal profession. One thing I noticed was that new technology was always seen by the political class as a replacement for boots on the ground, not, as Ray said a support.
I take no joy in seeing the chickens come to roost now. After the Peckham shoplifting incident I see people from all sides are calling out for a return to 'old fashioned community policing', would they be the same people who said that that method of policing was old fashioned and inefficient?
Finally I see that the policing minister has 'ordered police to run the faces of all shoplifting suspects through facial recognition systems'. No mention is made of how this will be actioned but as the govt are probably being spoken to by big retailers something will happen, still we are back to the era of everything being a priority and I fondly remember very senior officers barking that everything had to be done. Happy days for those still serving. Glad I'm out.
Another stellar piece. I could barely disagree with a word, especially the observation that those who were around a few decades ago can see the horror show of the creeping authoritarianism in a way that our children cannot. Maybe that is part of the calculation; a 40 year plan that will come to fruition when the dinosaurs die off and only those who have grown up with this intrusive technology are left. I find myself, as a natural conservative English liberal, attracted by Neil Oliver’s call for a revolution. How did that happen?
As both a fellow member of the lamp swinging fellowship and a confirmed technology fan (first worked in a computer bureau in 1969) I am somewhat conflicted by this.
I have through my involvement with PNC, CCTV and ANPR seen the massive benefits to crime prevention and detection they can bring. Even GATSO cameras were truly the most effective method of speed and traffic light enforcement.
The problem came when technology, as you said, was seen as a revenue generator and a replacement, rather than a support, for boots on the ground or behind the wheel.
Reduction in patrolling officer numbers led to less contact with the public, replaced by postal fines sent by automated systems.
Support for officers from the public has reduced significantly to be replaced by phone cameras and social media spying on every interaction in an effort to criticise or gain clicks.
Leadership has failed to get the message over to the public and has concentrated more on touchy feely than explaining the need for robust enforcement.
If this is what the public want, let them reap what they sow. But I think at least make them fully aware what that entails. That is the job of the Government and chief officers.
I agree completely Ray. The Met ANPR bureau, for example, is an amazing outfit that works intelligence miracles. They were unsung heroes on a number of jobs I worked on. It's not the technology per se. It's the people using it.
'Policing' has been deserted by the police. It's now done by any number of piecemeal organisations, including local authorities, who aren't interested in proportionality, or very experienced. And they want to make money. Taxing our behaviour is the next step, as we have seen. And that's what I'm complaining about.
Welcome back Dom, and thank you!