The Policeman's Blog

...but how will we know?

Being a police officer, I’m in no position to claim that most government employees do work of little or no value for the people who pay their wages. Similarly, I can't claim without irony, that the pension provision for public sector workers under the 85 year rule is antiquated and unfair. In any case, we’ve been told that “emergency services will work as normal” and I was hoping for a day off.

It’s a general rule of thumb that a police force has twice as many police officers as police staff. In other words, for every two police officers there is a “civilian” employed by the police. I like to think of myself as a “civilian in uniform”, an ordinary person who does, full-time, what most people would do anyway; consequently, I don’t really like the term civilian, the opposite of which is jack-booted paramilitary thug (a term which I prefer, but isn’t very user friendly).

So, these support staff then, what do they do? From my lowly position it’s difficult to tell. What I can tell you for sure is that they run the day to day operations of the police: they tell us when a crime has been committed, when it has been solved, who to arrest and when to arrest. They tell us when we can go on holiday and what time we can go home at the end of the shift. They also tell us what enquiries to carry out in the course of an investigation.

Support staff are sometimes charged with reducing the administrative burden on the police, a task which has been proved much more difficult. Even though I deal with the same situation every day, it still amazes me that despite the vast amount of computer power at our fingertips and the large numbers of support staff working at the police station, I spend almost half my time inside the police station, and I’m called a front-line officer.

I wouldn’t want you to think that I’m being critical of support staff. They, like us, are simply carrying out instructions according to the latest policy:

-Do I, as a front-line officer, perform a more useful task than a call-taker? Not really. A call-taker can put someone’s mind at rest and get them on-side before the arrival of the police.

-95% of the work of any crime audit department is a waste of time, but 80% of what I do as a front line officer is a waste of time as well.

-What’s the point of having a domestic violence unit that doesn’t investigate or prosecute domestic violence cases? Well, what’s the point in me prosecuting domestic violence in the first place if I already know they aren’t going to turn up at court?

-Given a choice, would I rather take responsibility for something myself, or send e-mails telling someone else to take responsibility for it? No contest.

In the words of the great Arthur Daley, “We are but prawns in game, Terence, prawns in a game.”

Because by the time we'd done the risk assessment, waited for enough officers to show up, got approval down the chain of command, completed the surveillance request, decided which department was going to run the operation and who was in charge, got the open incidents down to an acceptable level, sorted out space in custody (just in case), found the location on mapping, waited for the informant to ring back a few times, found a patrol to do a drive past the location in an unmarked car and sorted out an RV...
...he would have died of old age.

Certain calls from the public do not generate a very enthusiastic (and therefore quick) police response. Here’s some examples of calls that will ensure that all the officers in radio range will be busy:
1. My credit card details have been stolen and I’ve just found ten transactions in the Newtown area.
2. I’m outside Ritzy’s nightclub, I’ve been assaulted and I want to press charges.
3. I’ve received a threatening telephone call.
4. This is Newtown Social Services; we have a resident who has been assaulted by another resident. Both have learning difficulties.
5. I want my ex-wife done for harassment.

So, what do the above examples have in common? Firstly, they are all crimes which will require lots of investigation: CCTV will have to be checked at all the locations of the fraudulent transactions, the competitors at Ritzy’s will be drunk and abusive, the telephone call will have to be traced, Social Services’ clients will have to be video interviewed and a flimsy case of domestic harassment will have to be proven.

Secondly, the result of all the enquiries is a forgone conclusion: CCTV at the shops will not turn up a recognizable offender, nobody at Ritzy’s will remember anything, the phone trace form will be lost at least once and then found to belong to someone living miles away, CPS will never run cases involving mentally ill people with no injuries and no independent witnesses and the same goes for cases of harassment. Knowing the result of these enquiries in advance, it’s hardly surprising if the officers on duty remain out of earshot.

So what kind of calls make officers drop whatever they’re doing and drive like Nigel Mansell?

1. Murder. It’s never a murder. It’s always a lunatic reporting a murder. In the unlikely event that it is a murder, it will be dealt with by CID and involve lots of overtime.

2. House Fire. As above. The opportunity to rescue people with the minimum of paperwork. Possible ride in a fire engine.

3. Assist another force with an arrest. The opportunity to stand around while someone else does the work. At last.

4. Thirty people fighting each other with weapons. A bit like murder, never anything in it.

5. Swan on the High Street causing an obstruction. No crimes, no paperwork, just a big white bird that may or may not respond to CS. The only danger is getting caught in the crush of police officers attending the incident.

Over at The First Post my analysis of the goings on at the top of the Met.

Have a look at this recruitment site. Can anyone find a more glamorous one? The three videos make working for the LAPD look really exciting and rewarding. All the more so when you consider that their starting salary is just over $50,000 (about £29,000).

Detectives investigate most crime that you read about in national newspapers or see on television. If it’s a really serious crime like a murder, a relatively senior officer will head the investigation and appear on the news asking for witnesses to come forward and reassuring the rest of us that the killer will be caught. An unfortunate by-product of all this publicity is that lots of people I meet are under the impression that their particular case will also be dealt with by detectives.

In statistical terms, detectives investigate a tiny minority of crimes reported by the public. That’s not to say they don’t do very much, it’s just that the investigations they carry out are much more detailed and thorough than those carried out by their uniformed colleagues. Even so, most investigations are time consuming, frustrating and boring. Take the following example:

Newtown young offender Kevin has five mates round from Weatherby for the weekend. While these friends are in his house, Kevin’s stash of £200 (which was kept in a cash box) goes missing. Kevin reports the matter to the police on Monday morning and makes a statement. In the statement, Kevin says the £200 was there on Friday before his mates arrived and was gone when they left on Sunday; nobody forced entry into his house and nobody else owns a key; Kevin did not see anyone else in the house all weekend.

Clearly there are a number of lines of enquiry here: the cash box will have to be fingerprinted and Kevin’s five ex-friends will have to be interviewed. This may well take months because Weatherby is in a different force area from Newtown and a few hundred miles away. PC Copperfield will have to get officers from Weatherby to speak to the five friends (PACE compliant) and ask them if they took the money.

The result of the enquiry is in no doubt right from the start: Kevin will not get his £200 back, all five friends will deny stealing it and the case will be filed as undetected.

Now, let’s say that the following day, Tuesday, another member of the public reports being assaulted by three people who then got into a taxi. The number of the taxi was taken and the passengers identified. Each of these will have to be arrested and their accounts taken; each will provide alibis that will have to be investigated; each will deny being there and an identity parade will have to be done for each person. This will take months.

Once again, the result of the enquiry will be in no doubt: the victim will be unable to identify the offenders because he was drunk at the time, there will be no CCTV evidence and CPS will not run the case.

That’s two simple cases reported to the same officer over two days that will result in hours of enquiries spread over several weeks and in each case, the officer knew within a few minutes of speaking to the injured party that there would never be enough evidence

It is cases like these that form the bedrock of a detection rate. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence to charge someone, sometimes there won’t. Beyond a certain point the law of diminishing returns begins to bite: if we spend more time investigating crime, we might be able to push up the detection rate a point or two, but at what cost? The officers who could be out on patrol are stuck in the police station arranging futile appointments with witnesses months after the event. If they aren’t doing that, then they are putting together files for the CPS which they already know will never run in a month of Sundays.

I have between 10 and 20 of these crimes on the go at any one time each requiring a varying number of arrests and/or statements. The crimes aren’t particularly serious and about half the victims have already forgotten about them.

I can’t remember the last time I did something worthwhile.

The Job is the fortnightly newspaper for the Metropolitan Police Service and it’s available here. There’s a new initiative from Inspector Clive French in which dog owners will be urged to be vigilant and report “useful information on low level crimes”. Encouraging members of the public to telephone the police is, in my experience, a recipe for disaster: the people that you might want to call (reasonable folks whose minds are not addled by drink or drugs) have long since realised that making such a call would be at best a waste of time and at worst an inadvertent admission of a criminal offence. This leaves the bored and the mentally ill, who never seem to stop calling us.

Mrs C. read the article and asked, “Well why aren’t the police on the streets reporting useful information on low level crimes ?” Which just goes to show that policing should be left to the professionals and not enthusiastic amateurs like Mrs. C. The police? On the streets? Mad woman.

At first sight though, it’s not a bad scheme: it’s got a “champion” in Inspector French, it’s got a name (“Dogwatch”) and it’s got FREE GIFTS (the alarm and flashing dog collar). The only disappointment for me is when Inspector French says, “This is not about vigilante policing.” That’s a bit of a shame. Vigilante policing is just what we need with London’s dog walkers forming the advance guard.

There’s also an article about the SCD7 Projects Team who prevent murders and actually fake murder scenes to solve crimes. People often ask me about such bizarre things, and it’s clear that they know more about them than I do. Such police work is so far removed from what I do it’s almost unrecognisable. My list of crimes seems to cling to me wherever I go and what’s more, whenever I go away for a day or two, it gets longer. So if you have reported anything to me in the last few weeks, it will take a while before I can get round to it.

(Thanks to my insider at the Met)

I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Mick “shagger” Philpott, but the country really is going down the pan. Mick lives with his wife, mistress and fourteen children in a titchy house in Derby and the council are dragging their heels in responding to their demands for a bigger hutch.

One of the worst things about responding to domestics in council houses, are the sheer number of children one has to record on the form. My paperwork also used to reflect the complexity of the domestic arrangements at the address, but now I record an approximate number of children, together with the details of the most aggressive adults. I suspect that the Philpott brood will be providing work for Derbyshire Police for years to come.

On a more serious note, Channel 4 News showed exclusive footage of Olufemi Ijeeboude being stopped by a Dorset bobby who thought he was swallowing drugs. Mr. Ijeeboude thought that the only thing he was guilty of was, "driving whilst being black", something that immediately made me think of the classic Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch where Griff Rhys-Jones arrests someone for wearing a loud shirt and stepping on the cracks in the pavement. The footage came from a camera in the officer’s police car and shows a fairly disastrous traffic stop. When stopping a car, I always give the offenders plenty of time to swallow or otherwise dispose of illegal articles: it saves so much trouble in the long run and leaves me with more time to get detections, thereby improving the performance of Newtown police.

Olufemi may have been innocent or he may well have swallowed some drugs, but it’s interesting to note that he felt sufficiently relaxed during the stop to take his hands off the steering wheel. Advice given in the Lonely Planet guide to Texas states: “When being pulled over by a police car…keep your hands in plain sight at all times (preferably atop the steering wheel) so the officer doesn’t mistake your movements for a reach…and introduce you to the latest Colt Industries product.”

Can it really be about a year since I received the e-mail about how all recording devices (visual and audio) need to be registered with Technology Services? Like most front-line officers I’m too busy to have anything more than a passing acquaintance with “round robin” e-mails, so probably ignored it. Just like Sir Ian Blair.

The excuse we got over here at Newtown was that for any evidence to be admissible, the recording device had to be approved. Complete rubbish of course. The real reason as we all know, is that senior officers can’t bear the idea that their interviews with junior officers might be recorded. Ordinary PCs could never be trusted to record the whole context of the meeting and there are probably human rights issues anyway.

I’ve only known of one officer who regularly recorded meetings he had with his Inspector and ever since, I’ve thought it was a good idea. Much of what police officers do is recorded: incoming calls are recorded, interviews with suspects are recorded, actions of police officers are often recorded on CCTV and interviews with suspects are recorded on tape. Over in the US many cars have cameras that actually work- a significant advance on those in the UK, which don’t.

Advances in mobile phone technology have meant more suspects recording their street encounters with the police. Sadly, I’ve never seen or heard the results, which in my case must sound like a bizarre meeting between Snoop Dogg and John Le Mesurier. I have however often been threatened by young idiots brandishing their shiny new telephones and telling me that have just recorded me being rude, or worse, racist. If only they spent as much time on their schoolbooks as they do on their phones, perhaps I could spend more time in the office.

For some years Newtown had a persistent complainer who was not only a lunatic, but also an “early adopter” of new technology. He used to ring up about some matter or other and when the officer arrived he used to insist that you sat in one particular chair, and didn’t speak until his recording equipment was going. Needless to say, it always took about ten minutes of fiddling before he was happy, so after being recorded for about a minute, I used to pretend that I really needed the toilet. Upon my return I used to sit in a different chair and refuse to move.

For those of you who are interested, here are a couple of gadgets:*
An ordinary Recorder
A "Spyphone"

*Needless to say, Coppersblog provides these details as an information service to its readers. For Gawd’s sake don’t break the law; and if you get caught…don’t blame me.

The chances are that if you aren’t a police officer on duty and you have heard the words in the title, then you’ve been arrested for drink driving. If you have blown into the tube and blown over the limit, then you’ll be asked to participate in the evidential breath test, back in the custody block at the station. Assuming you don’t wish to take part, there are really very few avenues open to you because if you don’t “…provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of an approved device…” then you’ll be charged with failing to provide and the penalty will be very similar, if not worse, than providing a positive specimen in the first place.

So, how can you get out of doing the test? Here’s four ways you might like to try:
1. Feign illness in response to the question “Is there any medical reason why you cannot provide two specimens of breath.” The illness you have to pretend to have is, of course, asthma.

2. Feign a needle phobia. As an alternative to a breath test we will insist on a blood test being carried out by a police surgeon. The obvious solution on our part to your needle phobia is to tell you to look away, but it’s always worth a go in court.

3. Pretend not to speak English. This is surprisingly effective at the roadside, but once inside the police station we shall use a telephone service called language line so our words are translated into whichever language you claim to speak. Even so, it’s always worth a go.

4. Be awkward. All your responses to the questions that a police officer asks you are written down on a form, so if you change your mind a few times the form begins to look like it’s been completed by a chimp. Once the form is presented at court, you might be able to find a small part of it that hasn’t been completed correctly. You’ll need an expensive lawyer for this though, so it’s really only suitable for premier league footballers.

The “fail to provide” charge is a pain because the crown has to prove that the accused fully understood the procedure and still failed to comply with the instructions, as opposed to simply stating that the accused was x amount over the limit. This usually means a court appearance by the officers involved (which in turn means a day at work when you’re supposed to be at home). So how can you ensure the suspect provides a specimen without breaking the law?

1. Don’t take any chances with foreigners. Even if they appear to speak English and using language line seems like a real pain, have the custody sergeant get on the phone immediately. Once they realise your determination to get them to provide, they may well give in.

2. Demonstrate on camera. Take a spare mouthpiece, stand 10 inches away from the suspect blow in it, then ask them if they understand. This is good evidence if they are determined not to provide and can persuade them that the game really is up.

3. “Corner” the suspect. Tell the suspect quietly that they have to face the reality of the situation and that there really is no alternative to blowing; help them to understand that you are the only person who can safely lead them out of the unfortunate situation that they now find themselves in. Works well with young men. Fails every time with women.

4. Push for medical reasons. This may sound counter-intuitive, but if you can get a blood sample rather than a simple fail to provide, it will make for a simpler handover for the morning and may well save you further enquiries in the long run.

So that’s it really. I can’t imagine I’ve given away any trade secrets and I’m certainly not advocating that you drink and drive, I just hope I’ve given you a bit of an insight into what goes on in a police station.

Come in for some serious analysis, courtesy of yours truly over at the First Post.

Only these ones won't be appearing on the sidebar because...well have a look and decide for yourselves.
Official West Yorks PCSO Blogger Mark Dunkley
Official South East Kent Blog

See what happens when Britains public sector takes a viable concept (in this case a blog) and adapts it for it's own puposes. The result is enough to make one kill oneself.

The South East Kent Blog is so bad it's an unwitting parody of police work; so good it's bad. Take the "key incidents" (their words, not mine) for 21 February 2006:
- Two suspects were arrested after they were seen jumping on the roof of a parked car in Holywell Avenue, Folkestone.
- A woman in Dover reported that her partner had assaulted and threatened her. Police attended the scene and a man was arrested.
- Five cars were seized as part of Operation Cubit, a joint operation between the police and DVLA to deal with untaxed vehicles.

These aren't "key incidents", they're "minor incidents" to everyone except the owner of the parked car and the woman in Dover with the punchy husband.

You can let Kent Police know what you think about their blog by e-mailing them at enquiries@kent.pnn.police.uk

Recently the organisation has become aware of a series of web-logs or blogs where authors - claiming to be police officers - have offered their views on a number of issues in a highly personalised, often controversial manner.

As a result Management Board has issued some general guidance on writing about experiences or giving personal opinions about the MPS via web-logs.

Whilst there is nothing to stop any serving police officer of member of police staff from 'blogging', everyone should ensure they are familiar with the following guidance before taking part in such discussions.

-MPS staff taking part in web-logs should consider the impact of expressing views and opinions that are damaging to the organisation or bring the organisation into disrepute.

-Serving staff should not seek to profit from their experiences of working in the Met and therefore should not accept payment for anything they write or produce.

-The web-log author should make clear that the views expressed are theirs alone and do not represent those of the MPS.

-The contents of any web-log should not divulge information, which could compromise operations, investigations or which breaches the Official Secrets or Data Protection Acts.

-The contents of any web-log should not contain material that is racist, homophobic, sexist defamatory, offensive, illegal or is otherwise inappropriate. If any member of staff is identified as contributing such material to a web-log they may be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

-The author should ensure that any blogging activity does not interfere with work commitments.

Needless to say, this blogger continues to donate all his outside earnings to charity and treats all correspondence in the strictest confidence.

I can't help thinking that by issuing this guidance the Met is trying to wrestle with a problem that simply doesn't exist. For one thing, hardly anyone who calls the police on a regular basis is able to read, so there's no chance of regular customers not dialling 999 because of something they read in a blog.

Secondly, hardly anyone reads blogs, despite what the media says.

Thirdly, most police bloggers could give official police press officers a lesson or two in connecting with the public.

There may be an advert above this post...or there may not. I think I've signed up to an advertising contract...but I may not have. I don't really know and anyway my lack of IT expertise really shows through at times like this.

The aim is to give the money away to a police charity (honest) and any advertisers will be able to reach thousands of whinging coppers who will need torches, boots and stuff.

“You’re under arrest for assault,” are words I utter on a regular basis. I used to state them with determination, these days I sound like I’m offering the accused the opportunity of fries with his Big Mac.
“You can’t arrest me, you don’t even know if I’m guilty.” The challenge. Do I launch into a justification of my reasonable suspicion? Do I summarise PACE? Not tonight, I’m driving.
“err…good point.”
“Well you can’t arrest me if you don’t know I’m guilty.”
“I can, I just said it.”
“But you haven’t even asked if I did it.”
“Oh, alright then. Did you do it?”
“No, it was self-defence. He hit me first.”
“Err…right…well, there we are then.”
“So how can you arrest me for self-defence?”
“I don’t really know to be honest. Someone said you hit them, so you’re under arrest.”
“So what if I said he assaulted me?”
“Then we’d probably be arresting him. Something to remember for next time perhaps.”
“So what happens now?”
“We interview you when you’re sober.”
“So I have to spend all night at the police station?”
“Yes, but you’ll be out by tea-time probably.”
We continue to discuss the peculiarities of the case as we wend our way to the police station; the accused pointing out that he is innocent and me pointing out that he is confusing me with someone who may care either way.

With new officers arriving at work with a full set of Blackstones or, marginally more useful, The Beat Officers Companion, I thought I would provide my own list of books I have found useful during my own uneventful career.

The inordinate amount of time spent by police colleges on defining certain offences leads to an expectation in the probationary constable that he will have some difficulty in telling the difference between “theft” and “assault”. Consequently, officers purchase books which explain not only common offences, but also offences relating to such things as badgers and unborn babies.

This is all entirely unnecessary. Most young people joining the force these days are intelligent and enthusiastic; their tuition at whatever training establishment they have been to will have given them an excellent understanding of the law and their tutor constable will be able to impress upon them the importance of healthy scepticism.

Given the parlous state of the British education system, it won’t surprise anyone that a large percentage of new and existing police officers of all ranks are unable to write correct English. Fortunately, this is matched by a depressingly poor standard of written English in the population as a whole and widespread illiteracy amongst England’s criminal classes.

So, onto the list, which is a collection of the “trade” the modern and the classic. It’s certainly not final and I’m sure that many of you will be able to add your own. I’ve read all of them and I think they’ll help you understand criminality, policing and the evils of government a little bit better.

1. Macbeth. Shakespeare’s tale of murder tells us all we need to know about evil, guilt and human nature.

2. This Small Cloud. Sadly out of print, this is a book about an ordinary copper working in London at about the time of the Second World War.

3. The Trial. Franz Kafka’s classic tale of Joseph K., who is arrested for an offence he hasn’t committed. I sure many of my innocent suspects feel like Joseph K. after they’ve been though the mill of CPS and 47/3 bail.

4. Warfighting. The US Marine Corps Book Of Strategy, as recommended by former Deputy Commissioner of the NYPD Jack Maple. Read this and understand why the police are ineffective.

5. 1984. George Orwell’s novel about individuality and the state seems to become more relevant as more legislation gets onto the statute book. Use your powers sparingly.

6. A Fine Balance. When people talk about poverty causing crime, tell them to read this. An eye-watering tale of government incompetence and poverty in modern India.

Here's something I wrote for Channel 4. It's about addiction.

I actually wrote the article before looking at the site, so I never thought they would publish it. All credit to them though, and another donation to UKCops.

With both my NRA and Police Review subscriptions due for renewal, it's time to take stock. Mrs. C has decided that I can't have both and one needs to go, so here's a selection of what's in Police Review this week:

A three page special on utility belts and the fact that they are so heavy
A feature by Barbara Wilding (CC South Wales Police) about why senior female officers are just as good as their male counterparts, but need more help.
An article in which the IPCC chairman asks for more complaints to be made about the police
A job advert asking for police officers with firearms experience to go to Iraq

Here's a selection of what's in American Rifleman this month:
Lots of adverts for guns
Review of the Smith & Wesson Military and Police pistol
Article about coach guns in the old West
The history of the Boys Anti-Tank Rifle
A collection of stories about how old people, armed to the teeth, have shot burglars

Police Review will not be arriving at Copperfield Towers in the near future, because it's shite.

For those of you still unable to understand my enthusiasm for the American way of doing things, read this:

What sounded like an explosion outside a man's home set off a bizarre chain of events. According to police, when the homeowner looked out of his window around 2 am, he saw that a Jeep had crashed into his garage. Armed with a handgun, he went outside and found a man trying to dislodge the vehicle. A yelling match ensued and the man drove off, but returned with his lights off. The homeowner, fearful that the driver was trying to hit him or run him over, hid behind a car, and the suspect accelerated and smashed into it twice. The homeowner then fired three or four shots at the Jeep, but his gun jammed, so he ran inside to retrieve another firearm while his wife and neighbours phoned police. When the homeowner returned, the driver of the Jeep accelerated toward him so he fired two more shots at the vehicle. The driver, whose vehicle was riddled with bullet holes, then left the subdivision and was apprehended by police.

The key phrase in the story is: "...his gun jammed, so he ran inside to retrieve another firearm..." Brilliant. No immediate action drills, no shouting "stoppage" and attempting to fix the problem; your gun jams so you go indoors and get another one.

Sir,

As an occasional peruser of your scathing criticisms of the criminal justice system in this country; I feel it is about time that the other side of the story is brought to the attention of your readers.

For too long now you have misrepresented the true picture on the subject of crucial paperwork. If you are having difficulty keeping up may I suggest that you take a secretarial course at your local adult education establishment? To not recognise that touch typing and the ability to write in shorthand are now essential skills for the modern officer is quite simply neolithic. Of what use are you to the country if you are unable to tell them, in triplicate, about your every move? I note that you relish any opportunity to regale your public with daring tales of tackling the Newtown crime problems almost single-handed. This is not really the case is it? You only occasionally mention the efforts of your support staff. When you do deign to give them a mention? It is done in such a flippant manner that I am starting to believe you sometimes resent their valuable input. It is high time that you realised the very important role they play in the ongoing fight against crime. If you want to stand any chance of being promoted into an office job then you would be wise to listen to them.

I am yet to see mention of the sterling work carried out by the Policing Bureaucracy Task Force. If you are unaware of the new policies they introduced or are yet to receive the new forms they produce, I would suggest that you take this up with your immediate supervisor as a matter of urgency. Incidentally, you also failed to give even a passing nod to their 2 year long battle to rid the Police Service of form 347Z46P9/A (more commonly referred to as the ‘Dump Permission Slip’). This truly historic victory means that officers up and down the land are now able to defecate in peace without first obtaining their OCU Commander’s signature. The other successes of the Task Force may be less obvious to the likes of you, but let me assure your readers, they are no less stunning in their significance.

I have occasionally detected a note of rancour when you have informed us of some of the many recent government initiatives to protect the country from those unfortunate souls who have been forced to turn to crime in a misguided attempt to better themselves. However, I feel that even you would wish to join me in celebrating the latest hard-line approach taken by our political masters to correct this behaviour. In case you missed it, I will recap:- The unfortunates will have to sign (or place their mark on) a contract promising not to make the same mistake again. In return for this we will be giving them a home and a job. Each unfortunate will have a named ‘manager’ to guide them through their future careers. Community work will be identifiable and doubled as it is “powerful, effective and tough punishment” that offers “the best chance of stopping offenders offending again”.

I believe this to be a truly admirable vision that will have the unfortunates toeing the line almost instantly. It would be astonishing if it were not for the fact that the team who brought this to us offer a wealth of experience; from their backgrounds in a number of relevant industries. Led by a former management consultant we have: A former primary school teacher, a couple of lawyers, a former organisational behaviour lecturer, a former social worker and a former transport journalist. All ably assisted by a superfluity of advisers I believe. I would be flabbergasted if this were not a line-up capable of dragging the criminal justice system into, and through, the 21st Century.

Yours faithfully,

Blair Babe, Europe (citizen of)

Up rolled the riot van
And sparked excitement in the boys
But the policemen look annoyed
Perhaps these are ones they should avoid

They got a chase last night from men with truncheons dressed in hats
They didn't do that much wrong, still ran away though for the laugh
"Please just stop talking
Because they won't find us if you do
Oh those silly boys in blue
Well they won't catch me and you"

"Have you been drinking son, you don't look old enough to me"
"I'm sorry officer is there a certain age you're supposed to be?: nobody told me"
Up rolled the riot van
And these lads just wind the coppers up
Ask why they don't catch proper crooks
Get their address and their names took
But they couldn't care less

He got thrown in the riot van
And all the coppers kicked him in
And there was no way he could win
Just had to take it on the chin

After a while, one gets to know how cases will develop: will there be an arrest? Will someone go to court? Will someone be found guilty?

I can usually tell by reading an incident log whether someone will be found guilty in court several weeks later. For example:
Domestic assault, non-injury=obtain statement, arrest, charge, not guilty.
There might be slight variations on the above (the complainant may well withdraw her statement prior to the arrest, for instance) but generally if there's no evidence, a court is unlikely to convict someone. In police-speak, a case in which nobody is going to be charged and arrests are made (if they are made at all) in the absence of any evidence is "going nowhere".

After being at work for exactly one week now, I'm becoming particularly adept at predicting what will happen in the following scenario:
Victim invites drug addict to stay for a few days, large sum of cash/electrical items go missing.
Any guesses?
The correct answer is:
=arrest drug addict, search house, seek CPS advice, NFA (No Further Action) drug addict.

It's clearly going nowhere.

Should I meet any of you in person I will regale you with tales of my dealings with the police forces of some of the African countries I have been visiting for a couple of weeks. Top of the list though, is introducing one local police chief to the joys of The Arctic Monkeys: "You have monkeys in England? And they sing?" Anyway, the chief thought they were rubbish, even when I played "Riot Van".

One more thing: I go away for two weeks and someone nicks 50 million quid from somewhere. Oh, the satisfaction of being able to say, "I was on holiday at the time of the incident and have no knowledge of it."

Copperfield is back...and he really needs the toilet.