We are a few months into a single police service in Scotland and the signs from within are far from good. A leader who informs us, the public from whom he gleans his not too shabby salary, that the days of solving the communities problems are over, the new service is about control.
Is that change of direction based on listening to the communities he serves? I would hardly think so, sounds like the ramblings of a despot.
A couple of weekends ago a substantial town in Scotland's central belt was policed by 50% local officers, supplemented by 50% from a city some thirty miles or so distant. The 'visiting' help had no local knowledge and to make things even more farcical they had electronic notebooks that were not compatible with the local system and could not be used. In effect the local officers had to attend at every call and use their note taking system and take over the situation. The reason for this 'new idea in action' was to save money by bringing in officers who would not incur overtime. The end result was that the local officers then spent the next few days trying to catch up with their increased workload. This was done on duty and they did not appear on the street to support their local communities, leaving skeleton staff to be run ragged. The result being more calls going unanswered and more disgruntled citizens.
I recently witnessed a crime taking place, or is it 'going down', who knows? I was within ten yards of the situation and telephoned the police as I watched. I was answered by the person in the call centre who launched into asking a raft of questions. I attempted to stop her by explaining the culprits could hear me and could she just get officers to attend and sort out the detail later, I promised to wait. I was firmly put in my place and informed that the police would decide if it was a crime and they would prioritise the response. I did comply and waited some 35 minutes. I never saw a police officer and in fact once the young people had finished, to their satisfaction I presume, they sauntered into the night to seek out another locus. I sauntered home wondering why I had bothered. Please note, anyone in the least interested, in future and will continue to saunter.
To control. A friend, three months or so ago, was eating dinner in his home when two police officers called. It seems they had suspicion that he had been driving, having consumed alcohol. He had not and it turns out the 'suspicion' came about because of an anonymous telephone call. No traffic incident or accident was involved. My friend had been home for about 25 minutes and told the officers so. Undaunted they continued with their business and demanded a breath sample. On being asked what would happen if he refused he was told he would be arrested. He again explained that he had not been drinking, to no avail. The subsequent test was not even negative, it was zero. The fact that the officers acted outwith their powers seemed not to matter a jot. I, on his behalf, contacted a well known defence lawyer who agreed the police were well out of order and acting outwith their powers. However he said, that was good as it was that kind of misuse of power that gave him something on which to base a defence. Little comfort to the person lying in a cell however.
A relative was driving home a few weeks ago and was signalled into a police checkpoint, as was all traffic. She was breathalysed. The officers had formed no suspicion as to whether or not she had consumed alcohol and therefore had no idea whether or not she was driving above the drink driving limit, in fact they did not even witness her driving, other than when signalling her to stop. She agreed to be breathalysed, even though she had not been drinking. Obviously she produced a zero result. My relative has no idea of police powers and will be just like the majority of drivers in that respect. This is another example of 'power creep' as we edge even closer to a police state.
Away from traffic issues and onto young people, but still lingering around police powers and their misuse. Recently an order went out all over Scotland that officers on patrol had to stop and search as many young persons they could. They, the police, were instructed to use a little known power, the 'voluntary' search. No suspicion, no evidence, just power. The instruction also was clear, 'don't come back to the office with no searches'. A interesting concept the 'voluntary' search. Not many young people faced by two police officers are likely to have the nerve, the courage, the balls might describe it best, to say, 'no I am not volunteering'. A senior officer explained that based on a directive from the centre, officers have to return at least one stop and search each shift. Having no suspicion is not an excuse. It is another example of stretching powers to control the public. I think we might call it 'power creep'.
There must be a new book on how to gain respect, missed that one.
I can evidence the new policy I have adopted. Since that first incident I came across a reasonably large shoplifting situation. Four people were putting their collection of stolen shirts and blouses together prior to splitting up their spoils. There were some thirty or so garments, still on the shop hangers. A friend with me asked if we should tell someone. We did not.
You see, I explained, the new police are about keeping us in control and they are not about solving our problems. They have enough to do keeping us under control.
I will not continue, other than to say, this is about politics and imposing political dogma. It does not matter if communities suffer.
The service is awash with politically imposed 'targets' and 'indicators'. Political control. I seem to remember reading about the same in the tractor factories of Russia.
What makes it worse is those who should know better, shall we refer to them as people with less than normal courage, do not stand up to be counted and chaos rules.
Who was asked about the changes? Ask about your community and your circle of friends, I doubt you will find anyone who had a say.
Anyway guys, just keep taking the money and remember, 'de omnius dubitandum'.
Is that change of direction based on listening to the communities he serves? I would hardly think so, sounds like the ramblings of a despot.
A couple of weekends ago a substantial town in Scotland's central belt was policed by 50% local officers, supplemented by 50% from a city some thirty miles or so distant. The 'visiting' help had no local knowledge and to make things even more farcical they had electronic notebooks that were not compatible with the local system and could not be used. In effect the local officers had to attend at every call and use their note taking system and take over the situation. The reason for this 'new idea in action' was to save money by bringing in officers who would not incur overtime. The end result was that the local officers then spent the next few days trying to catch up with their increased workload. This was done on duty and they did not appear on the street to support their local communities, leaving skeleton staff to be run ragged. The result being more calls going unanswered and more disgruntled citizens.
I recently witnessed a crime taking place, or is it 'going down', who knows? I was within ten yards of the situation and telephoned the police as I watched. I was answered by the person in the call centre who launched into asking a raft of questions. I attempted to stop her by explaining the culprits could hear me and could she just get officers to attend and sort out the detail later, I promised to wait. I was firmly put in my place and informed that the police would decide if it was a crime and they would prioritise the response. I did comply and waited some 35 minutes. I never saw a police officer and in fact once the young people had finished, to their satisfaction I presume, they sauntered into the night to seek out another locus. I sauntered home wondering why I had bothered. Please note, anyone in the least interested, in future and will continue to saunter.
To control. A friend, three months or so ago, was eating dinner in his home when two police officers called. It seems they had suspicion that he had been driving, having consumed alcohol. He had not and it turns out the 'suspicion' came about because of an anonymous telephone call. No traffic incident or accident was involved. My friend had been home for about 25 minutes and told the officers so. Undaunted they continued with their business and demanded a breath sample. On being asked what would happen if he refused he was told he would be arrested. He again explained that he had not been drinking, to no avail. The subsequent test was not even negative, it was zero. The fact that the officers acted outwith their powers seemed not to matter a jot. I, on his behalf, contacted a well known defence lawyer who agreed the police were well out of order and acting outwith their powers. However he said, that was good as it was that kind of misuse of power that gave him something on which to base a defence. Little comfort to the person lying in a cell however.
A relative was driving home a few weeks ago and was signalled into a police checkpoint, as was all traffic. She was breathalysed. The officers had formed no suspicion as to whether or not she had consumed alcohol and therefore had no idea whether or not she was driving above the drink driving limit, in fact they did not even witness her driving, other than when signalling her to stop. She agreed to be breathalysed, even though she had not been drinking. Obviously she produced a zero result. My relative has no idea of police powers and will be just like the majority of drivers in that respect. This is another example of 'power creep' as we edge even closer to a police state.
Away from traffic issues and onto young people, but still lingering around police powers and their misuse. Recently an order went out all over Scotland that officers on patrol had to stop and search as many young persons they could. They, the police, were instructed to use a little known power, the 'voluntary' search. No suspicion, no evidence, just power. The instruction also was clear, 'don't come back to the office with no searches'. A interesting concept the 'voluntary' search. Not many young people faced by two police officers are likely to have the nerve, the courage, the balls might describe it best, to say, 'no I am not volunteering'. A senior officer explained that based on a directive from the centre, officers have to return at least one stop and search each shift. Having no suspicion is not an excuse. It is another example of stretching powers to control the public. I think we might call it 'power creep'.
There must be a new book on how to gain respect, missed that one.
I can evidence the new policy I have adopted. Since that first incident I came across a reasonably large shoplifting situation. Four people were putting their collection of stolen shirts and blouses together prior to splitting up their spoils. There were some thirty or so garments, still on the shop hangers. A friend with me asked if we should tell someone. We did not.
You see, I explained, the new police are about keeping us in control and they are not about solving our problems. They have enough to do keeping us under control.
I will not continue, other than to say, this is about politics and imposing political dogma. It does not matter if communities suffer.
The service is awash with politically imposed 'targets' and 'indicators'. Political control. I seem to remember reading about the same in the tractor factories of Russia.
What makes it worse is those who should know better, shall we refer to them as people with less than normal courage, do not stand up to be counted and chaos rules.
Who was asked about the changes? Ask about your community and your circle of friends, I doubt you will find anyone who had a say.
Anyway guys, just keep taking the money and remember, 'de omnius dubitandum'.
