As ye shall not be the least bit surprised, I wasn't impressed by Restore's verbose policing policy. When you break it down, at least half the document is padding with a completely unrealistic and pointless implementation plan. Most of all, it's badly structured and badly written, lacking any obvious appreciation of the state we're in, or how the government intends to reform policing.
I wrote what is pretty much the definitive article on the captured British police 16 years ago. It is worth re-reading today. If you don't like satire, skip the opening paragraphs. The article concluded thus:
"The much-traduced British police are now protectors of the multicultural/socialist state rather than the protectors of the law-abiding general public. If you are a member of the ruling elite, the police are not only your political servants but also your personal bodyguards. If, on the other hand, you are a member of the increasingly persecuted class, by which I mean traditionally British, irrelevant of income or education, then the police have at best abandoned you, or at worst become your enemy."
That Pete, and indeed his father, can do detailed research and analysis a vital and essential skill that is lacking in our politicians and civil servants.
As the wise old saying goes "The devil is in the detail" or to adapt what James Carville said during Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign " It's the detail stupid!"
Sadly most of our political class are "Cognitively challenged" or put another way 'plain stupid'.
After Blair came to power a new word within the policing structure began to circulate. Every single police force employed people (always women) in charge of "Transformation." Quite what this meant was never fully explained but it was obvious to some even then, and should be obvious to all now.
It’s possible that the police can be turned around more effectively than you suppose. The faults that have made them utterly unthinking enforcers of two tier policing and injustice-that intellectual dullness and conformity-might serve a better cause if the policy outlines and aggressive leadership all leant in the other direction. How many of them would just take the pay and pension and do a political 360 if promotion, job security and status depended on being colour blind rather than colour conscious? Pressure has never been applied in the other direction.
A few decades ago now, maybe 3, I began to realise that the police on the street or in cars were always in twos. I always thought it was to give them someone else to talk to. I cannot recall, since those times, seeing the police in public being on their own. Perhaps others have?
Obviously it has the effect of doubling the cost of that operation. Before those days, a single policeman (of course, a man) had the respect and authority to handle 99% of circumstances on their own.
Interesting point. Partly from the PACE days, a solitary plod wouldn't be trusted if anything went wrong. Also we have a gender neutral police so probably not ideal sending WPCs out on their own. As you say, you need twice the headcount to provide the same street presence.
There are no police constables! Only corporate police-y officers = revenue collectors or as I like to call them Rothschild Goons (Muppets) who know nothing about the law of the land.
Completely agree Pete, especially re not addressing policing in isolation but as part of a holistic reform including the justice system, prisons and welfare.
I also despair at the quality of many of those employed as officers, but it's really not their fault. They applied for a very poorly paying job with terrible risks to life and limb and most of them (from X admittedly) do seem to be jobsworths. I recently had cause to have a PCSO visit me to warn me about rogue traders and offer me a risk assessment. I really didn't need either and after 10 minutes talking to me, the lady concerned (who was difficult to understand due to her heavy foreign accent) realised that I probably was better informed and adept than she was. It's been dumbed down. But it's really not their fault.
Under the heading "Recruitment, Retention & Pay" is the statement "Assault against the police should be tolerated and police officers must be assured that anyone who attacks them will not be released early." Should this read should NOT be tolerated?
That aside, an excellent and comprehensive layout of what is, and what could be!
I wrote what is pretty much the definitive article on the captured British police 16 years ago. It is worth re-reading today. If you don't like satire, skip the opening paragraphs. The article concluded thus:
"The much-traduced British police are now protectors of the multicultural/socialist state rather than the protectors of the law-abiding general public. If you are a member of the ruling elite, the police are not only your political servants but also your personal bodyguards. If, on the other hand, you are a member of the increasingly persecuted class, by which I mean traditionally British, irrelevant of income or education, then the police have at best abandoned you, or at worst become your enemy."
https://paulweston.substack.com/p/multiculturalism-destroyed-the-british
Great article which I read last year Paul ... despite it being longer than the prohibitive five paragraphs my limp Restore brain balks at. Apparently.
" We might be in trouble. " I think we are well beyond that, sadly.
Saved me typing similar. Shit, isn't it!
That Pete, and indeed his father, can do detailed research and analysis a vital and essential skill that is lacking in our politicians and civil servants.
As the wise old saying goes "The devil is in the detail" or to adapt what James Carville said during Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign " It's the detail stupid!"
Sadly most of our political class are "Cognitively challenged" or put another way 'plain stupid'.
"We are doomed I tell you!"
I like that 'cognitively challenged'.
After Blair came to power a new word within the policing structure began to circulate. Every single police force employed people (always women) in charge of "Transformation." Quite what this meant was never fully explained but it was obvious to some even then, and should be obvious to all now.
It’s possible that the police can be turned around more effectively than you suppose. The faults that have made them utterly unthinking enforcers of two tier policing and injustice-that intellectual dullness and conformity-might serve a better cause if the policy outlines and aggressive leadership all leant in the other direction. How many of them would just take the pay and pension and do a political 360 if promotion, job security and status depended on being colour blind rather than colour conscious? Pressure has never been applied in the other direction.
A few decades ago now, maybe 3, I began to realise that the police on the street or in cars were always in twos. I always thought it was to give them someone else to talk to. I cannot recall, since those times, seeing the police in public being on their own. Perhaps others have?
Obviously it has the effect of doubling the cost of that operation. Before those days, a single policeman (of course, a man) had the respect and authority to handle 99% of circumstances on their own.
I believe they were first made to go two-by-two for safety's sake. Can't say I blame them.
Interesting point. Partly from the PACE days, a solitary plod wouldn't be trusted if anything went wrong. Also we have a gender neutral police so probably not ideal sending WPCs out on their own. As you say, you need twice the headcount to provide the same street presence.
''the brains of Restore supporters capsize at the sight of a five paragraph tweet.''
Don't forget to label us as knuckle dragging neanderthals as well Pete.
No Rupert Lowe has released a new paper. All credit to him for he has a plan, unlike the spiv Farage.
At last, Peter being a little less negative in putting a paper together to promote his own ideas on policing.
Send it to Lowe and Bolton and point out the paucity in their policing publication.
Criticism with suggestions of how the problems can be put right is constructive.
Then sit back and dream of the Tempest.
Re your last sentence, we are already in trouble - deep, deep trouble.
Trauma Before the Badge: How GoVia Is Rewriting the Script of American Policing
https://govia.app/trauma-before-the-badge-how-govia-is-rewriting-the-script-of-american-policing/
There are no police constables! Only corporate police-y officers = revenue collectors or as I like to call them Rothschild Goons (Muppets) who know nothing about the law of the land.
Completely agree Pete, especially re not addressing policing in isolation but as part of a holistic reform including the justice system, prisons and welfare.
I also despair at the quality of many of those employed as officers, but it's really not their fault. They applied for a very poorly paying job with terrible risks to life and limb and most of them (from X admittedly) do seem to be jobsworths. I recently had cause to have a PCSO visit me to warn me about rogue traders and offer me a risk assessment. I really didn't need either and after 10 minutes talking to me, the lady concerned (who was difficult to understand due to her heavy foreign accent) realised that I probably was better informed and adept than she was. It's been dumbed down. But it's really not their fault.
Yes‼️🤬🤬🤬
I suspect your second word was meant to be 'you'.
He is from Yorkshire mind…
Under the heading "Recruitment, Retention & Pay" is the statement "Assault against the police should be tolerated and police officers must be assured that anyone who attacks them will not be released early." Should this read should NOT be tolerated?
That aside, an excellent and comprehensive layout of what is, and what could be!