That DCI going back to the rest of the team to give them a lift back up and dust down is a great example of how management need to deal with people. The jobs hard enough without having to look over your shoulder all the time. I bet that team worked their socks off after being told they were good cops.
Worrying times and totally against right to a private life.
Agreed we need to out bad cops but baby and bath water spring to mind.
Policing comes under public (press?) scrutiny periodically, miners dispute, Hillsborough and the Manchester bombing. Whilst this seems a bit unfair it is right that poor policing is held accountable. Trouble is it’s become a national sport! Despite budget cuts, a diminution of recruiting standard, a loss of budget and d lower recruiting standards, the majority of officers try their best under harsh and unfair criticism. If Harriett gets her way the situation will get worse!
When I was part of the SLT at a large London Borough, lack of resources was NEVER accepted as an excuse for poor performance. Yet the NHS can post that regularly -and get public sympathy every time.
Thank you for this erudite article Don. Wish I had your eloquence.
The MPS’ problems to my thinking is the same as it has been in the whole of my experience. A lack of front line supervision, now coupled with what MAY be vetting failures.
I shall address point two first as it’s easier. We should remember vetting ONLY tells us what is KNOWN about individuals. If a fact wasn’t known and could not reasonably have been discovered with ‘due diligence’, then it isn’t a failure of vetting. As I understand it Couzens had the nickname ‘rapist’ or something similar in the Atomic Energy Constabulary or wherever it was before he was in the Met. That was not disclosed to the MPS I believe. If I have my facts wrong then my apologies and I shall get back in my box, but if this is correct then it brings me to my first point.
If he DID bear this epithet there, did his supervisors know? If they did, what investigation was made to find out why he had this unusual moniker. I imagine none whatsoever. This that info was not exploited, it was never looked into and an opportunity was potentially missed to head this off. If it was known, why was it not passed on? Probably because the reference was a tick-box or mere confirmation of dates of service. You and I both know there are legitimate ways to pass on intelligence about officers applying to join other services but supervisors are usually too reluctant to use it , for a variety of reasons. The best are because they don’t wish to blacken the names of colleagues. The worst is they want to get rid of a ‘problem-child’ or supervisory nightmare.
Mark Rowley is reverting to type here. He talks culture change but actually all he wants is mass sackings. That MAY be part of the answer but it won’t deliver cultural change or improvement. It’ll just sack more officers. The powers to deal with malpractice and corruption are there. In my experience Police managers were far more comfortable with discipline than dealing with unsatisfactory performance (UP). The UP Procedure is bureaucratic and long winded. Most supervisors don’t want to put in the time and effort or may not actually understand the procedure so you see disciplinary outcomes like written warnings for what is actually people not doing their job well.
This is the thing. The supervisory ratio in the armed forces (which have two rank structures, commissioned and non-commissioned) is about 1-4 or 6z. Under Bernie Two Dads and Mr Burns they decided there were too many managers , and set the ratio as one sergeant to ten PCs. If you follow the logic. An Inspector should therefore have ten sergeants and one-hundred PCs under them. (Perhaps we should call them Centurions?) a chief inspector would be responsible for 10 Inspectors, 100 sergeants and 1000 PCs. Get to Chief Super and it’s 10 Super, 100 Chiefs, 1000 inspectors, 10,000 Sergeants and 100,000 PCs. Think of the savings at what used to be called ACPO ranks!
So far as I know nobody ever challenged this ridiculous idea. As far as I know those ratios were actually never achieved at sergeant level, as it would clearly have been impossible to actually service that number. PCs work largely alone, unlike the armed forces. It’s not hard to hide. Sergeants are abstracted left right and Centre. I remember in ‘87 I patrolled only twice with my sergeant in my entire probation. I can’t remember how many times as a PC afterwards, but in fairness I wasn’t a problem.
As a PS and Inspector I received absolutely no training. I ‘leapt fully armed from the head of Zeus’ to misquote some ancient writer. I don’t know what training is given now but I doubt it is much more. I know someone who did a Fullbright Scholarship to the US to look at their training. He realised we spent dignificantly more money and time training drivers than we did leaders.
If you truly want to get a grip on stuff then improve the leaders at the bottom levels. Train them thoroughly and be realistic about how much one man or woman can do. There should be a rank just below sergeant that is a ‘meritorious’ supervisor -a long service PC who is effective, knows their job and can be a positive role model but doesn’t require test taking. Supervisors should WANT to be supervisors -to have their troops’ best interests in mind but realise they are no longer ‘one of the boys/girls’ and act accordingly.
Rant over. Thank you again and thank you for your patience reading another of my stream of concious WSS ramblings.
I’ve just been reminiscing with my retired Ch Supt mate about our careers which both finished before 2003. The level of attention given to police activities now is far in advance of when we policed. Whilst always trying to be fair, we did things in our professional and personal lives which would certainly not be acceptable today in the current climate of microscopic hovering over every aspect of a Bobby’s life. I think the problem as you say lies with recruitment and first line supervision of those Bobbies. Cuts in funding encouraged removal of some of the filters that prevented or detected the bad ones, and made supervisors too busy to do their job of monitoring their bobbies properly. Until that funding is restored and recruitment practices and supervision return to the previous level of filtration and oversight, unsuitable officers will continue to be recruited and their misdeeds will remain undetected.
There are a number of problems with modern policing ,without a doubt, but most of them can be laid firmly at the door of politicians of every stripe, who have used the service az a political football for years. This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of policing in Britain, by people so removed from the realities of the job that they could not hope to understand it. The crux of the problem is this: All the 'experts' think that perceived problems with the police stem from a lack of education, and have striven for years to get a cadre of graduate entry accelerated promotion senior officers in command of the various police forces that make up the UKs police. The problem is that they spend only short periods learning their craft, flitting from role to role, department to department, without ever mastering any. Their efforts more concentrated on gaining the highest rank possible. This has resulted in a top heavy senior management without a proper understanding of what it's like to work the streets on early, late and night shifts. Add in the poisonous contribution of politicians, from Clarke to Blunkett, and from Brown to probably the worst, May, who cut resources massively,and forced changes in practices that only made matters worse. All the self flagellation by chief officers about institutional racism, inter alia, are ridiculous. Police were always meant to be of the public, and they are. That means that like the public, some are racist, some homophobic, etc.etc. Most, however, are not, and contrary to popular belief, the police service is one of the most professionally dangerous places to say or do anything that can be adjudged inappropriate. Standards, however, have dropped, from a high point where applicants were thoroughly vetted, and interviewed in person by a panel of especially trained officers, to the current situation where the process is HR driven, by non-police staff, with Zoom interviews. And by the way, institutional racism, a term coined by Lord Scarman and explained by him, did not refer to racism by individuals, but in the systems of the service. I could go all night about this, but I will sign off by saying that I was a Metropolitan Police Officer for over 30 years, 25 as a Sergeant, half in uniform and half CID. I did my utmost to serve the public without fear or favour, being in some scary situations, and being injured. I was involved in the aftermath of the 7/7 attacks, and instigated and played a pivotal role in the 2006 investigation that prevented the Liquid bombing of 8 transatlantic flights, saving the lives of several thousand people. I have seen acts of huge bravery, and diligent investigation. I have also seen and investigated the other side of the coin, having been in anti-corruption work and "internal affairs" for 10 years. You would be genuinely surprised at the resources and vigour that went into that work.
Of course there are problems, in part brought about by the things I described above, but the overwhelming majority of the men, women and others in the service are diligent, brave and compassionate. They are ones who will be running towards terrorist incidents while everyone else runs the other way. Calls to defund/disband the police are unfair, and demoralising to a bunch of people being kicked from every corner. If the police should be disbanded, then so should the NHS and the whole of the teaching profession, both of which contain more sexual predators in positions of trust and authority than any police organisation
I agree that chucking more resources at catching bent coppers than other offenders is not the way forward.
In my long service I've worked with fantastic men and women, and I've encountered some who should never have been in the job as long as they had a hole in their whatsit.
I saw some old timers unable to adapt to the 'new' ways, unfortunately I had to deal with one older DC who still thought old Sarbut rules still applied, for that I was ostracised for several years by his friends in the job.
If I had a quid for everytime I heard that we'd never lock up another criminal when PACE was introduced, then I would be a rich man.
But at the moment it is reaching epic proportions, phones are pushed in cops faces when they are dealing with every type of job, questions and comments hurled at officers by professional bystanders, provocation by so called Auditors, politicians looking to score points by knocking the police, reducing numbers, budgets, but then thinking up a new role/task for Forces almost on a daily basis.
From the factory floor, it is obvious that the seams are starting to split, more experienced officers will be replaced by those with Police degrees, not necessarily a grounding in life.
I'm glad to have retired last week, I have seen the job I loved, and did to the best of my ability for over 45 years become almost a pale shadow of its former self.
Harman was one of the supporters of PIE - the Pedophile Information Exchange - along with her husband and other Labour luminaries. Clearly she hasn't much of a clue about human rights; as for Khan, he's a chancer - only supported by Labour for the Mayorality to get him out of Parliament.
Good points! Mayor of London was another brilliant idea to increase the bureaucracy over us all. Should never have been allowed to take over the MOS as long as the latter had/has national responsibilities.
That DCI going back to the rest of the team to give them a lift back up and dust down is a great example of how management need to deal with people. The jobs hard enough without having to look over your shoulder all the time. I bet that team worked their socks off after being told they were good cops.
Worrying times and totally against right to a private life.
Agreed we need to out bad cops but baby and bath water spring to mind.
Policing comes under public (press?) scrutiny periodically, miners dispute, Hillsborough and the Manchester bombing. Whilst this seems a bit unfair it is right that poor policing is held accountable. Trouble is it’s become a national sport! Despite budget cuts, a diminution of recruiting standard, a loss of budget and d lower recruiting standards, the majority of officers try their best under harsh and unfair criticism. If Harriett gets her way the situation will get worse!
The public should be told the truth !
When I was part of the SLT at a large London Borough, lack of resources was NEVER accepted as an excuse for poor performance. Yet the NHS can post that regularly -and get public sympathy every time.
Double standards by press, politician and public.
Thank you for this erudite article Don. Wish I had your eloquence.
The MPS’ problems to my thinking is the same as it has been in the whole of my experience. A lack of front line supervision, now coupled with what MAY be vetting failures.
I shall address point two first as it’s easier. We should remember vetting ONLY tells us what is KNOWN about individuals. If a fact wasn’t known and could not reasonably have been discovered with ‘due diligence’, then it isn’t a failure of vetting. As I understand it Couzens had the nickname ‘rapist’ or something similar in the Atomic Energy Constabulary or wherever it was before he was in the Met. That was not disclosed to the MPS I believe. If I have my facts wrong then my apologies and I shall get back in my box, but if this is correct then it brings me to my first point.
If he DID bear this epithet there, did his supervisors know? If they did, what investigation was made to find out why he had this unusual moniker. I imagine none whatsoever. This that info was not exploited, it was never looked into and an opportunity was potentially missed to head this off. If it was known, why was it not passed on? Probably because the reference was a tick-box or mere confirmation of dates of service. You and I both know there are legitimate ways to pass on intelligence about officers applying to join other services but supervisors are usually too reluctant to use it , for a variety of reasons. The best are because they don’t wish to blacken the names of colleagues. The worst is they want to get rid of a ‘problem-child’ or supervisory nightmare.
Mark Rowley is reverting to type here. He talks culture change but actually all he wants is mass sackings. That MAY be part of the answer but it won’t deliver cultural change or improvement. It’ll just sack more officers. The powers to deal with malpractice and corruption are there. In my experience Police managers were far more comfortable with discipline than dealing with unsatisfactory performance (UP). The UP Procedure is bureaucratic and long winded. Most supervisors don’t want to put in the time and effort or may not actually understand the procedure so you see disciplinary outcomes like written warnings for what is actually people not doing their job well.
This is the thing. The supervisory ratio in the armed forces (which have two rank structures, commissioned and non-commissioned) is about 1-4 or 6z. Under Bernie Two Dads and Mr Burns they decided there were too many managers , and set the ratio as one sergeant to ten PCs. If you follow the logic. An Inspector should therefore have ten sergeants and one-hundred PCs under them. (Perhaps we should call them Centurions?) a chief inspector would be responsible for 10 Inspectors, 100 sergeants and 1000 PCs. Get to Chief Super and it’s 10 Super, 100 Chiefs, 1000 inspectors, 10,000 Sergeants and 100,000 PCs. Think of the savings at what used to be called ACPO ranks!
So far as I know nobody ever challenged this ridiculous idea. As far as I know those ratios were actually never achieved at sergeant level, as it would clearly have been impossible to actually service that number. PCs work largely alone, unlike the armed forces. It’s not hard to hide. Sergeants are abstracted left right and Centre. I remember in ‘87 I patrolled only twice with my sergeant in my entire probation. I can’t remember how many times as a PC afterwards, but in fairness I wasn’t a problem.
As a PS and Inspector I received absolutely no training. I ‘leapt fully armed from the head of Zeus’ to misquote some ancient writer. I don’t know what training is given now but I doubt it is much more. I know someone who did a Fullbright Scholarship to the US to look at their training. He realised we spent dignificantly more money and time training drivers than we did leaders.
If you truly want to get a grip on stuff then improve the leaders at the bottom levels. Train them thoroughly and be realistic about how much one man or woman can do. There should be a rank just below sergeant that is a ‘meritorious’ supervisor -a long service PC who is effective, knows their job and can be a positive role model but doesn’t require test taking. Supervisors should WANT to be supervisors -to have their troops’ best interests in mind but realise they are no longer ‘one of the boys/girls’ and act accordingly.
Rant over. Thank you again and thank you for your patience reading another of my stream of concious WSS ramblings.
I’ve just been reminiscing with my retired Ch Supt mate about our careers which both finished before 2003. The level of attention given to police activities now is far in advance of when we policed. Whilst always trying to be fair, we did things in our professional and personal lives which would certainly not be acceptable today in the current climate of microscopic hovering over every aspect of a Bobby’s life. I think the problem as you say lies with recruitment and first line supervision of those Bobbies. Cuts in funding encouraged removal of some of the filters that prevented or detected the bad ones, and made supervisors too busy to do their job of monitoring their bobbies properly. Until that funding is restored and recruitment practices and supervision return to the previous level of filtration and oversight, unsuitable officers will continue to be recruited and their misdeeds will remain undetected.
There are a number of problems with modern policing ,without a doubt, but most of them can be laid firmly at the door of politicians of every stripe, who have used the service az a political football for years. This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of policing in Britain, by people so removed from the realities of the job that they could not hope to understand it. The crux of the problem is this: All the 'experts' think that perceived problems with the police stem from a lack of education, and have striven for years to get a cadre of graduate entry accelerated promotion senior officers in command of the various police forces that make up the UKs police. The problem is that they spend only short periods learning their craft, flitting from role to role, department to department, without ever mastering any. Their efforts more concentrated on gaining the highest rank possible. This has resulted in a top heavy senior management without a proper understanding of what it's like to work the streets on early, late and night shifts. Add in the poisonous contribution of politicians, from Clarke to Blunkett, and from Brown to probably the worst, May, who cut resources massively,and forced changes in practices that only made matters worse. All the self flagellation by chief officers about institutional racism, inter alia, are ridiculous. Police were always meant to be of the public, and they are. That means that like the public, some are racist, some homophobic, etc.etc. Most, however, are not, and contrary to popular belief, the police service is one of the most professionally dangerous places to say or do anything that can be adjudged inappropriate. Standards, however, have dropped, from a high point where applicants were thoroughly vetted, and interviewed in person by a panel of especially trained officers, to the current situation where the process is HR driven, by non-police staff, with Zoom interviews. And by the way, institutional racism, a term coined by Lord Scarman and explained by him, did not refer to racism by individuals, but in the systems of the service. I could go all night about this, but I will sign off by saying that I was a Metropolitan Police Officer for over 30 years, 25 as a Sergeant, half in uniform and half CID. I did my utmost to serve the public without fear or favour, being in some scary situations, and being injured. I was involved in the aftermath of the 7/7 attacks, and instigated and played a pivotal role in the 2006 investigation that prevented the Liquid bombing of 8 transatlantic flights, saving the lives of several thousand people. I have seen acts of huge bravery, and diligent investigation. I have also seen and investigated the other side of the coin, having been in anti-corruption work and "internal affairs" for 10 years. You would be genuinely surprised at the resources and vigour that went into that work.
Of course there are problems, in part brought about by the things I described above, but the overwhelming majority of the men, women and others in the service are diligent, brave and compassionate. They are ones who will be running towards terrorist incidents while everyone else runs the other way. Calls to defund/disband the police are unfair, and demoralising to a bunch of people being kicked from every corner. If the police should be disbanded, then so should the NHS and the whole of the teaching profession, both of which contain more sexual predators in positions of trust and authority than any police organisation
How many serial killers have sheltered in the NHS??? And how many in the police??
If there’s a toxic culture, it isn’t the Old Bill that is the most serious…
I agree that chucking more resources at catching bent coppers than other offenders is not the way forward.
In my long service I've worked with fantastic men and women, and I've encountered some who should never have been in the job as long as they had a hole in their whatsit.
I saw some old timers unable to adapt to the 'new' ways, unfortunately I had to deal with one older DC who still thought old Sarbut rules still applied, for that I was ostracised for several years by his friends in the job.
If I had a quid for everytime I heard that we'd never lock up another criminal when PACE was introduced, then I would be a rich man.
But at the moment it is reaching epic proportions, phones are pushed in cops faces when they are dealing with every type of job, questions and comments hurled at officers by professional bystanders, provocation by so called Auditors, politicians looking to score points by knocking the police, reducing numbers, budgets, but then thinking up a new role/task for Forces almost on a daily basis.
From the factory floor, it is obvious that the seams are starting to split, more experienced officers will be replaced by those with Police degrees, not necessarily a grounding in life.
I'm glad to have retired last week, I have seen the job I loved, and did to the best of my ability for over 45 years become almost a pale shadow of its former self.
Harman was one of the supporters of PIE - the Pedophile Information Exchange - along with her husband and other Labour luminaries. Clearly she hasn't much of a clue about human rights; as for Khan, he's a chancer - only supported by Labour for the Mayorality to get him out of Parliament.
Good points! Mayor of London was another brilliant idea to increase the bureaucracy over us all. Should never have been allowed to take over the MOS as long as the latter had/has national responsibilities.
Most politicians are reptiles…