The Policeman's Blog

I've never met Sean Price, the chief constable of Cleveland, but it seems unlikely to me that he's worth £200,000 a year, however good he is. Still, it's comforting to know that the taxpayer is helping to put his kids through private school, isn't it?
The Times has done some digging into a number of chiefs' pay packages.
They've also found out that Sir Norman Bettison (W Yorks) has a 'unique package' worth about £55,000 a year, Ian McPherson (Norfolk) got £70,000 more than his £126,000 salary in 2007-08 and Essex's popular Roger Baker was awarded a golden handcuffs package to persuade him to stay.
As well as private school fees, car allowances and stamp duty, more dosh was handed out to various chiefs for relocation packages, satellite TV and 'lifestyle coaching' (whatever that is).
I suspect the thing that will bug taxpayers the most is the money given for 'home security'.
It would be nice it we could all have some of that.
At the same time, Sir Hugh Orde has warned that police forces will have to make cuts.
It would take forever to list the lunatic nonsense which could be scrapped in every police area up and down the land (flip flops, speeding cyclists, cardboard cops, lollipops etc etc etc).
Suffice it to say, if the forces stopped wasting money phoning people up to ask how they feel about interacting with the police, sacked their diversity co-ordinators, burned half the forms and concentrated on harrassing known criminals, an awful lot of the crime that real people in the real world are worried about could be dealt with overnight (with assistance from the courts and jails, of course).

BREATH-HOLDER

It's a sad reflection on Canadian humour (or is that 'humor'?) that while the idea itself is well executed, it's not as funny as it could have been.

When we join up, we all have these photos taken (in front of the flag, hat tucked under your arm) so that there's something other than your Facebook profile picture to put out to the media in the event of your demise. My picture has noticeably less brass in it.

News of the low morale failed to reach me before the news story, so I've been working away completely unaware of the growing crisis.

Inspector Gadget tells me that you are all having problems keeping cool whilst in your external body armour (or is that 'armor'?). You'll be pleased to know that we are issued with covert Second Chance body armour and 'x-static high performance' T-Shirts to go underneath! Hope that goes some way to making you all feel better.

Happy Canada Day!

Here's a picture I took yesterday while I was working. It shows the Saskatchewan River running though Edmonton and is taken from this location here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.543113,-113.445425&spn=0.021115,0.076818&z=14


Forest Heights Park is in my district and unlike many parks in the UK isn't full of children getting off their faces on alcopops.

The river is in a steep sided valley as it runs through the city, and not used by shipping because it's too shallow. Next year, I'm getting a kayak and going to paddle along the river for a couple of days, packing my gear and camping on the bank.

Next month I'm off to Snake Indian Falls for a few days.

I've just got back from a two week holiday to the UK with Mrs C. It was quite strange going back after just over a year and a half away. Nothing much has changed and it was good to see family and friends once more. We hired a car at the airport and ended up driving from Manchester, to Birmingham, to Bristol, to Norfolk and back and found the amount of traffic amazing, even outside the cities. That said, there seemed to be a 'blitz spirit' amongst the drivers that you don't get in Alberta: the general standard of driving was very high and almost everyone was very considerate, resigned to the traffic jams.

Still, it was good to be back, Canada has now become home in such a short time.

This weekend we're having a squad barbeque out towards Tofield and Mrs C and I shall be celebrating nine years of marriage at Edmonton's premiere dining experience.

Some people think the police are all thugs. Others think they're all incompetents. Others still think they're all incompetent thugs.
Well, given that the British police are drawn from the British population, and that we see all around us every day evidence of incompetence and thuggery, it would be surprising if a few didn't fall into one of the above three categories.
Most, though, are ordinary people who really just want to deal with shoplifters (and other criminals), as this classic PC David Copperfield post from yesteryear suggests.

Just how far I have departed from the approved method of dealing with criminals was revealed to me yesterday when I dealt with a shoplifter whilst accompanied by a probationer.

I dislike being accompanied by probationers when dealing with prisoners and I always say, “Whatever competencies you need me to sign off, I will, but don’t tell anyone else about what’s going to happen today.” Being able to deal with a shoplifter is the starting point for any police officer because it contains some simple elements of police work:
An offence
An offender
An arrest
A house search
An interview
A charge or caution
A file
A crime report

For me, speed is of the essence when dealing with so-called “simple shoplifters” (Adults who will readily admit the offence, don’t require a solicitor and speak English as a first language) and my record from arrest to caution is 57 minutes. Usually though progress is slowed by a number of requirements. These are:
An appropriate adult (for juveniles)
A solicitor (for the inexperienced)
An interpreter (for the foreign)
A house search (for the greedy)
A busy custody suite
A denial by the offender

Sometimes though, speed takes second place to other tactical considerations. For example: if I arrest a shoplifter at 12.00 midday and I need to finish at 4.00 pm, do I really need to hurry? Let’s say the average simple shoplifter takes three hours, why should I rush?

Anyway, back to the probationer and the prisoner. First the clarification interview:
“So, are you going to admit it?”
“Yeah.”
“Are you sure? Because if I interview you and you deny it, I’ll put you back in the cell and have to get more evidence. You understand that, don’t you?”
“Yeah, course.”

Next came the formal request for legal advice:
“Will you be wanting a solicitor? Just to help me get an idea of the time.”
“Err…yes I think I’d better had, just in case.”
“No problem. We’ll be able to have one for you in about three or four hours. I’m ready to interview you right now if you want.”
“OK. So can you just interview me and let me go?”
“Yeah no problem. You’ll have a solicitor at court anyway.”
“OK, well I’ll leave the solicitor then and you can interview me.”

Finally the house search, which has to be authorised by an Inspector or above. The police like searching houses and we can do it at the drop of a hat, we feel that if we have the power we should be using it. The problem is that in real life, you never find anything and it takes ages to get the necessary authorisation signed. The problem for me is not so much to get the search authorised as to persuade the Inspector that it’s not worth doing:
“Hello Inspector, It’s Dave Copperfield. I’ve got a shoplifter who’s stolen razor blades to the value of £20.00. They’ve been recovered and he’s cooperative.”
“Have we searched his house?”
“Not yet sir. The problem is we’re really struggling for people today and I’m ready for interview now.”
“OK, leave it then, carry on with the interview and get him charged.”

The interview lasts three minutes (including formalities) and the thief is charged. So we’ve managed to avoid a lengthy interview, a house search and the interminable wait for a solicitor and we’ve reduced the time spent dealing with the shoplifter by two hours and we’re almost back on the streets where the non-shoplifting public actually want us.

The piece de resistance is that the security guard has written his own statement, so I don’t even have to do that, I just pick it up later. Because the prisoner admitted the offence on tape, the quality of the witness statement is irrelevant, furthermore, the brief transcript of interview that I have to prepare for the file, contains the following: “Normal Introductions. DP made a full and frank confession to stealing the razor blades.”

To tie up some loose ends I have to explain to the probationer why I ask such penetrating questions in the car and not in the interview room, why we didn’t take the statement and why we didn’t do a house search as per force policy. Unlike many officers I have not been on a course to teach probationers, so I only have them for a day or so when their regular tutor is on holiday. I don’t like probationers to do anything: I’d rather take the responsibility myself rather than overhear one of them saying, “Dave Copperfield told me that it was OK to breach PACE and that it should be used as guidance rather than law.”

I'd never say that.