An Englishman’s Home Is His Castle

Or is it?

I can’t begin to speak for the County Forces, I have absolutely no idea what their rules are or were. However, back in 1972 when I joined the Met I had no say in it, I simply HAD to live within a 25 mile radius of Central London.  I can’t remember now whether it was Hyde Park Corner or Charing Cross, but there isn’t much difference.

It didn’t end there either.  Once my family and I had found a house we would like to live in I had to submit a report to the Senior Management to obtain permission to live there.  Partly to ensure that my choice of abode was within the dreaded circle, but also in order that the neighbours could be vetted, to ensure that I would not be living next to a drug dealer, murderer or bank robber etc.  I understand why, I understand completely, but it completely rode roughshod over the rights and wishes of my wife and family.

Over the years the rules were relaxed and eventually officers were moving out of London for the more affordable accommdation available just a few miles outside, or maybe even as far away as the South Coast if you were really lucky.

Alongside the private sector there were alays Section Houses and a small number of flats for single officers, and a range of 2,3 or 4 bed Married Quarters for families.

Eventually, along came Boris, and to help the Met achieve its Austerity targets most, if not all, of the Section Houses and Married Quarters were sold off to property developers.

House prices in London, and private rentals, are now sky high, so now more than ever, officers are forced to live further and further away from London in order to find a reasonable house, at an affordable price, in a reasonable area.

Next hing we know we have Policy Exchange recommending that officers should live within the communities they Police. Forgetting the price of housing just for one second, why does the officer’s wife/husband/partner have no say in where they live? Why do their rights and expectations get absolutely squashed by the Police Service?

Police Officers and their families living on a Council Estate that they patrol during their working hours?  What could possibly go wrong?

Today we have the press running a total non-story about Met Officers living in Cornwall, or even the South of France.  So what?  They don’t commute that journey every day.

Officers could,and probably would, live much closer to Londn if they could afford it.  House prices have risen, officers’ take-home pay has decreased thanks to the May/Winsor coalition ‘Reforms’. Section Houses and Married Quarters are no longer an option.  They have been sold off to the highest bidder.

The basic reasons for all of this can be traced back to Central Government, Boris and no doubt Police and Crime Commissioners across the land.  Short-sighted, stupid, sucking up to May and Winsor?  Who knows, but a disastrous policy that would have prevented mischievous headlines lke we saw today.

Met terror warning as report reveals ‘commuter cops’ live as far away as Cornwall and the South of France

Police Officers’ partners, wives, husbands have rights. Ignore that at your peril

Why Can’t All Politicians Be Like Mine

Sarcasm Alert – there may be some.

Like the rest of the country, here in DeadBadgerShire we have our very own MP, and he’s an absolute corker.


He’s good value for money because he doesn’t seem to bother Parliament very much;

  • Has spoken in 17 debates in the last year — below average amongst MPs.
  • Has received answers to 0 written questions in the last year — well below average amongst MPs.
  • Until 2015 he saved us money by employing his wife as his part-time Senior Parliamentary Assistant at a salary of £15-£20k p.a.
  • He is a Conservative MP, and on the vast majority of issues saves any confusion by voting the same way as other Conservative MPs.


So, when he is at work, he tends to vote, so far so good.


  • Consistently voted for raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year
  • Generally voted for reducing central government funding of local government
  • Generally voted against equal gay rights
  • Consistently voted against the hunting ban
  • Voted a mixture of for and against allowing marriage between two people of same sex
  • Generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights
  • Generally voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life
  • Consistently voted for the Iraq war
  • Consistently voted for an investigation into the Iraq war
  • Has never voted on a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK
  • Has never voted on UK membership of the EU
  • Generally voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the “bedroom tax”)
  • Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices
  • Generally voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
  • Almost always voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support
  • Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits
  • Generally voted for increasing the rate of VAT
  • Generally voted against increasing the tax rate applied to income over £150,000
  • Generally voted against a banker’s bonus tax
  • Voted a mixture of for and against higher taxes on banks (???)
  • Generally voted against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)
  • Consistently voted for more restrictive regulation of trade union activity
  • Consistently voted for reducing capital gains tax
  • Almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax
  • Voted a mixture of for and against measures to reduce tax avoidance (???)
  • Generally voted against restricting the provision of services to private patients by the NHS
  • Generally voted for reforming the NHS so GPs buy services on behalf of their patients
  • Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament (???)
  • Generally voted against transferring more powers to the Welsh Assembly
  • Generally voted against transferring more powers to the Scottish Parliament
  • Almost always voted against a lower voting age
  • Generally voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities
  • Has never voted on merging police and fire services under Police and Crime Commissioners
  • Generally voted against measures to prevent climate change
  • Consistently voted for selling England’s state owned forests
  • Generally voted for culling badgers to tackle bovine tuberculosis
  • Generally voted against greater regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract shale gas
  • Generally voted against a publicly owned railway system
  • Consistently voted for phasing out secure tenancies for life
  • Generally voted for capping civil service redundancy payments
  • Voted a mixture of for and against restricting the scope of legal aid (???)

He has actually voted on about 76% of occasions so far this year, which is about average for an MP I believe.


He takes a lively interest in current affairs, I know he does.  When I wrote to him in 2012 about the slash and burn approach to Police Pensions, he had a firm opinion on the way forward and kindly wrote to me telling me how he felt about it.

paterson_pension 2


So, there we have it, he’s not a waste of space like most of them are, and he hardly has any external income to trouble us with, all he has to declare to the Register is

Payments received in my role as consultant to xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Ltd, a clinical diagnostics company, of xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx  xxxxxxxxx. This role began on 1 August 2015 and I received my first payment on 9 September 2015 (see below). Until further notice I now expect to receive £4,166 a month, for an expected monthly commitment of 8 hours.  He received an Oxbridge (or was it Uxbridge) Education where he studied for a degree in History (I assume he passed), he then went on to work for the British Leather Company in 1979, becoming Sales Director in 1983.  He has many other achievements since within the world of leather, all of which seem to make him ideally suited for a consultancy with a clinical diagnostics company commanding a meagre income of £4k per month for a whole 8 hours of his time.


All in all a thoroughly good egg, no? A great public servant with the best for his electorate always in his thoughts.

An Open Letter To Rt Hon Theresa May MP and Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP


I truly hope that what I have to say is not, and will not be viewed as, a knee-jerk reaction to a single hiccup in process.  It most certainly is not.

Most recently there has been the case of Anthony Long, a retired Authorised Firearms Officer with the Metropolitan Police, who was recently acquitted of murdering Azelle Rodney some ELEVEN YEARS earlier.  After the verdict Mr Rodney’s mother said this

The IPCC still owe me an apology for the wholly inadequate investigation in 2005. A better investigation may have resulted in a trial nine years ago – I can never get those years back – the IPCC must stop failing families in this way.

She was clearly not satisfied with the IPCC investigation.

Today we hear Mr Long’s thoughts on the situation.  In a BBC News report it was reported thus;

He expressed his concerns about the Independent Police Complaints Commission in a Radio Times interview.

An IPCC spokesman said it was “right that when there is a fatality there is an independent investigation”.

Mr Long said scrutiny was expected, but said “the problem is the interpretation of the rules and the way in which officers were treated”.

He added: “Today, the Independent Police Complaints Commission seems to be treating police officers as criminals.

Clearly Mr Long isn’t satisfied with the IPCC investigation either.  Both sides of the fence claiming that the IPCC were incompetent, or worse.

At the very beginning of August we had the nonsense in Manchester where the IPCC requested a Judicial Review to quash their own report because they had got it wrong.

Police watchdog granted judicial review to quash own report into death of Jordan Begley

The unprecedented move by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) comes after criticism of the Greater Manchester Police during an inquest last year. In their report of the incident, the IPCC cleared GMP of blame.

An IPCC spokesman said: “At the coroner’s inquest into the death of Jordan Begley concerns were raised about the conduct of the officers involved that may not have been consistent with the IPCC’s findings.

“In light of this, the IPCC reviewed its investigation and decided to seek permission to quash its independent investigation report in order to ensure all the available evidence could be considered.

Surely ALL of the available evidence should have been considered before the final report was even written?  On face value that seems very shoddy practice and consistent with that found within the IPCC elsewhere in England and Wales.

Jordan Begley’s mother also attacked the competence of the IPCC, she clearly has no confidence in them, neither can I see why the Greater Manchester Police should have any.

At the end of July we had the case of Edric Kennedy-Macfoy, a firefighter who alleged that he was Tasered and racially abused by three officers from the Met.  This case has been well reported in the media, and the case against the officers collapsed not only due to wholly negligent (being generous) procedures by the IPCC but also the fact that there were numerous witnesses who allegedly supported the officers’ version of events.

The Guardian reports it thus

IPCC bungled case against officers accused of abusing firefighter

In a statement the IPCC vowed to review the case to ensure it did not repeat the blunders. It said: “The withdrawal follows procedural shortfalls identified by the IPCC. They related to disclosure of relevant material and the need for further investigative work, including witness interviews, which it became clear were not conducted during the investigation.

Even the IPCC admitting that their investigation did not come up to standard, leaving both Mr Kennedy-Macfoy and the 3 Police Officers lacking confidence in the IPCC.

The Guardian also had this to say

The watchdog admitted it failed to take into account statements corroborating the officers’ accounts from independent witnesses, did not interview those witnesses and then failed to disclose those statements during disciplinary proceedings.

Admissions like these can hardly instill confidence in anybody.

At the end of 2015 we had an Authorised Firearms Officeer arrested for ‘homicide’ following the fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker.

In the IPCC’s most recent update on this case Commissioner Cindy Butts says

As part of the IPCC’s homicide investigation, an MPS firearms officer was arrested on 17 December. That officer has now been interviewed twice by IPCC investigators under criminal caution and remains on bail.

In total, the IPCC has so far obtained more than 450 documents, gathered in excess of 250 exhibits of evidence and obtained more than 250 witness statements.

The investigative work is now focused on scrutinising the planning, risk assessments and decision-making of the MPS operation.

Right from Day 1 Cindy Butts sensationalised this case by bandying words such as Homicide about and her handling of a Public Meeting in North London

“There is disgruntlement among armed officers because their colleague was arrested and is facing the possibility of a homicide charge or whatever other pretend words the IPCC is thinking of,” said Mr Marsh.

Clearly the Police Federaqtion are not impressed with the handling of this investigation so far, although I do accept that it has not reached its conclusion yet.

Prior to this we had the disciplinary process involving ex Chief Constable Nick Gargan of Avon and Somerset Police.

Concerns raised over IPCC’s handling of Nick Gargan investigation

Police and Crime Commissioner Sue Mountstevens said

I believe the IPCC acted with good intentions to protect and support witnesses and not betray the confidence of those that did come forward, but clearly the way they managed the process in this case has caused concern, as any failure to follow the disclosure process could have led to the proceedings being compromised or worse still collapsing.

The disclosure process needs to be reviewed by the IPCC so it is clearer for all concerned in future investigations and I will be writing to the IPCC Chair Dame Anne Owers to request this.

Disclosure is clearly an issue with the IPCC, not restricted to one isolated investigation.

I do not know of one single Police Officer who thinks that the Police Service should be unanswerable and unaccountable.  What they do expect is that ALL SIDES are examined equally, fairly and truly independently.  Anything less than that lets the Police down and it lets the Public they serve down, and neither side wants that.

I emplore you to initiate a programme of reform of the IPCC that goes beyond rebranding, rebadging and an increased budget.  A Root and Branch reform of working practices, policies, abilities etc etc is what is needed, plus a proper INVESTIGATION into the cases above where serious shortcomings have been highlighted.  A Review or a Scrutiny is simply not sufficient.

I’m obliged.

How Much Does A Police Recruit Earn?  Please Remind Me

I’m a wee bit out of touch but the last I heard was that they were being paid about £22-£23k with a recommendation from the Tom and Theresa Show that they should be paid £19k.  Those figures might be slightly out of kilter but you’ll get the gist of it.

So you will be able to imagine how much my flabber was ghasted when I read in this morning’s online version of The Mail that one of our illustrious Chief Constables had received a £26,000 PAY RISE last year.

As bad as that might seem, that is only the tip of a gold-plated iceberg.

The £200,000 boss who makes you pay his daily lunch bill: Essex Police chief claimed £32,000 in ‘allowances’ for food, internet and phone bills

More than half of the £32k ‘Allowances’ is apparently accounted for by a mysterious ‘Chief Officers’ Allowance’.  This allowance apparently is provided to cover items of expenditure such as home internet and phone bills and contributions to his lunches, coffees and snacks, and no receipts are required to be provided.

Now call me old fashioned if you want but as a Police Pensioner I haven’t seen an increase in my Pension for ages.  Serving Front Line officers have received derisory pay rises packaged together with controversial increases in Pension contributions etc. The average Front Line Bobby is now paying more in contributions, retiring later, earning less and receiving less pension upon retirement.  This apparently is known as REFORM.  When applied to Chief Constables REFORM seems to involve awarding them HUGE pay rises.  

Is it only me who thinks this must seem like a slap round the face with a dead cod to our fantastic Front Line officers, risking life and limb every day, not sitting in an ivory tower with quite possibly a protection officer for good measure.  

As much as I detest the current and previous Prime Ministers, why does a Chief Constable warrant a higher salary than the PM?

But if you think that’s bad it doesn’t stop there;

Police chief’s 64 days off a year: Top officers paid more than the PM use loophole to choose how much holiday they get… then moan about cuts to budgets!

How much Annual Leave?  How much does the average Front Line PC get?  Can they actually take their alloted Annual Leave or are the government’s viscious cuts preventing offiicers from enjoying their summer holidays en famille?

Unbelievably, a handy loophole in police regulations states “all officers above the rank of chief superintendent with more than ten years’ experience are entitled to ‘not less than 48 days’ of holiday a year” – but can effectively decide how much holiday they want or need.  Well, that’s alright then.  Why hasn’t that part of Police Regs been reformed?

Home Secretary urges police forces to set out pay and perks of senior officers amid ‘allowances’ of up to £32,000 a year

Mind you, it could be worse.  Yes really, imagine how much worse it would be if they were being paid their Private Healthcare costs.

In some cases senior officers are having private medical insurance written into their contracts.

The practice appears contrary to government regulations which state that private medical treatments should be funded by the taxpayer only when an officer is injured in the line of duty.

Hardly any forces are declaring the spending in accounts, meaning it took months of Freedom of Information requests to uncover the full picture.

In 2014-15, at least 14 forces paid for private medical cover

A cynical person might think that these perks have all been awarded, or gone unchallenged, in order to keep Chief Officers ‘onside’.

Personally I’m appalled. Politics in Policing is bad enough with PCCs but this smacks of Home Office puppetry of the highest order. “Our reforms are NOT going to go down well with our Bobbies, how can we make things easier?”

As I said, a cynical person might think that this all stinks, but smelly or not, one thing is for certain, Chief Officers are NOT sharing our pain.

Fit For Purpose? I Think Not

It may just come as a surprise to you but I am referring to the Independent Police Complaints Commission or IPCC as they are affectionately known.

I’m not going to bore you and take up any more of your time going over Taser’d Firefighter territory again, you can read any amount of that material here or elsewhere and form your own opinion.

What I am going to do is go over an item in the Manchester Evening News.

Police watchdog granted judicial review to quash own report into death of Jordan Begley

Why on earth would they want a Judicial Review into their own report?  The clues are in their somewhere.

The unprecedented move by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) comes after criticism of the Greater Manchester Police during an inquest last year. In their report of the incident, the IPCC cleared GMP of blame.

Crikey the IPCC clearing a Force of blame, that’s unusual.

Jurors at an inquest last year concluded using the weapon was ‘not reasonable’ and that officers’ failings contributed to his death.


“At the coroner’s inquest into the death of Jordan Begley concerns were raised about the conduct of the officers involved that may not have been consistent with the IPCC’s findings.

I should say not, clearing the Force of all blame isn’t really consistent with the comments from the Inquest.

“In light of this, the IPCC reviewed its investigation and decided to seek permission to quash its independent investigation report in order to ensure all the available evidence could be considered.

Call me old fashioned but shouldn’t the IPCC have considered ALL of the evidence before they issued their report with the first version of their ‘findings’?  That sounds awfully familiar.  Different office, different Commissioner, same apparent slapdash attitude.

Worse still is the fact that the Courts and government are not up in arms but are aquiescing and allowing them to get away with it because they have offered to ‘Review’ the issues and problems.  Nothing short of a full scale investigation into IPCC, it’s policies and practices will restore Public Confidence.

You can rebrand it, you can increase its budget but until a Root and Branch Reform (now there’s a controversial word) is carried out neither side will be able to have any confidence in the IPCC.

Is it Fit For Purpose?

I vote NO


I’m Telling You Nuffink Rozzer

Some time ago, you may remember, I posed the question whether it was approriate that one of our more northerly PCCs paid the ACPO membership fees.

Tory PCC Expenses & #FOI Raise Their Ugly Heads Again

I got a very fuzzy reply from the PCC concerned, that it was all a mistake and had come out of the wrong budget, still hasn’t been replaced though last time I looked.

As a response to an FOI request I was supplied with a copy of the invoice showing that this had been agreed at a General Meeting of the Association of Police and Crime Commsissioners.  So I was straight on it and asked for a copy of the minutes of that meeting.


Eventually I got a reply back from somebofy called James Waters

As we are a membership organisation these are private confidential documents, and we are not covered by the FOI terms.

If you can be specific about what information you are seeking, we can reconsider the request and try and assist further.



So I was VERY specific about what I wanted, just that part of the minutes that covered that alleged agreement


Despite the fact that PCCs are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners feels that it is not, and we ain’t telling you nuffink.

‘Nuff Said.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission

Or are they?  Independent I mean.

Yesterday they casually released three tweets to the world which ignited a pure shitstorm on Twitter and Facebook.

So after FIVE years of investigation, and all that involves for both complainant and officers, they simply issued a statement announcing the withdrawal of proceedings and apologising to all those involved.

Having been most insistent that proceedings for Gross Misconduct were warranted against the officers, meaning that the officers were at risk of being summarily dismissed from the Met and all that involved, they suddenly decide to withdraw the proceedings.


Because it became apparent that not ALL of the evidence had been served on the officers’ defence team.  Witnesses who could support the officers’ version of events were neither interviewed by the IPCC investigators nor was their existence revealed to the officers and their defence team.  At the point when the reasons for this were about to be challenged the IPCC decided to withdraw from the proceedings and not even turn up for them apparently.

We’re not talking about one or two witnesses who may have been overlooked, there were apparently SCORES of potential witnesses who would have supported the officers.

There was also information available that the complainant did not do as the officers told him to do at the scene of an incident and had no desire whatsoever to help them in any way.  He was apparently behaving in a manner which could have inflamed the situation more.

When their shortcomings became apparent the IPCC merely acknowledge that their report did not meet legal requirements, discontinued the proceedings (after 5 years don’t forget) and submit a letter to the panel containing an apology.  Is this really sufficient?  Is it ethical?  It most certainly isn’t professional.

So, there is now to be an “in depth review” of what went wrong.  In my humble opinion there should not be a Review, there should be an Investigation.  Whoever is responsible for this farce at IPCC should be identified, disciplined and face the same sanctions as the officers were facing.Was this a case of Gross Negligence where the IPCC investigators were blissfully unaware of their obligations under Disclosure?  I very much doubt that on the grounds that they investigate Police for similar failings.

Or is this part of an emerging trend where Disclosure obligations seem to be simply cast aside in the rush to convict a Police Officer of something?  Could be.

The IPCC don’t like recruiting ex Police Investigators on the grounds that they might not be ‘Independent’ enough.  The other side of that coin is that they know how to investigate and know all about the relevant bits of legislation that dictate how an investigation must be conducted.

Last night I asked who the IPCC are actually accountable to

I don’t expect an answer any time soon, but it’s a perfectly reasonable question.  Who ARE they responsible to, and what do they propose to do about this travesty?

This is NOT a “one off”.  The issues raised here must be simply swept under the catpet.  Heads should roll, in the same way that the IPCC were after heads, and it must never be allowed to happen again.  EVERYBODY should benefit from the same lawful, ethical and professional standards of investigation.  If this had been the Police “stitching up” a few local criminals there would be public outrage.

Let the outrage begin.

Lies, Damn Lies and Police Crime Figures

Sorry to resume from my vacation with a swear word but I’m absolutely pissed off with the politically correct bollocks being spouted about Crime Levels.

According to the latst publication Police Recorded Crime is UP by 8%.  This is glibly discounted by Improved Crime Recording Procedures, therefore we don’t have to do anything about it.

The Crime Survey of England and Wales figures are MUCH more reliable and they show a 6% FALL in crime levels, so Reform Is Working, Crime Is Down.

What they fail to tell you is that CSEW figures are nearly 50% HIGHER than Recorded Crime.

So, you tell me, Is Crime Down?

Nepotism Or Not Nepotism?

That is the question……

Some of you will know that I was going to stand for the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Mercia until Call Me Dave and the Cabinet Office tilted the playing field against Independent candidates.

Many of you will know that I subsequently applied for the position of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for West Mercia but was unsuccessful.

For these reasons I feel that I am entitled to hold an opinion and comment on the outcomes.

First off, the position of Police and Crime Commissioner went to a Conservative Councillor from Wyre Forest District Council, John-Paul Campion, who, bizarrely, follows me on Twitter so will doubtless see this post.  The previous post-holder had been an Independent and his, then, Deputy, entered the fray as an Independent this time round and finished 4th.  The Independents relegated from 1st to 4th.

Possibly the intervention of Theresa May had something to do with it, with her unsolicited emails supporting the Conservative candidate.  Where did she get non-Party Members email addresses from? Did somebody abuse the Data Protection Act?

Come the recruitment time for Deputy I took the view that I had nothing to lose and would try to inject some balance into what I saw as a bad situation for Policing in West Mercia.

My background, antecedents and experience speak for themselves.  My CV and Personal Statement were checked out by some people who know about these things. You know who you are and I am truly grateful.

And……………I didn’t make it through the short listing.  20 applicants, 6 made it on to the Short List.  I have no idea what the short-listing criteria were but I was disappointed not to make it.

For what seemed like an eternity I sat and patiently waited while the interviews were conducted and eventually the successful candidate was announced………..a Conservative Councillor from Wyre Forest District Council.  Incredible coincidence.

The local Press have not been slow to pick up on this amazing piece good fortune.

New ‘part-time’ deputy PCC appointed on £40,000 salary – as police chief denies “nepotism” claim

Police and Crime Commissioner John Campion defends appointing Wyre Forest District Council colleague Tracey Onslow as deputy

One of the above Press articles makes this very valid point, and implies, if not states, that both are hanging onto their Councillor jobs as well, contradiction of that would be most welcome if this is not the case;

The West Mercia PCC represents the people who live in four local authority areas; Herefordshire, Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin and Worcestershire.

“John Campion is a Wyre Forest DC and Worcestershire County Councillor. Tracey Onslow, is presently a Conservative Wyre Forest DC Councillor so we have a PCC and deputy PCC who are both from the Wyre Forest area of Worcestershire.

How WILL they adequately serve the people and Police of West Mercia if they also have “day jobs”?

I did manage to get hold of a set of the questions put to each of the 6 candidates who made it through to the interview stage, naive in parts, possibly tailored for a certain kind of person in others


The final insult for me personally is a pinned Tweet on Mr Campion’s personal Twitter account

Earlier in the week I was angry, today I am more sad.  Even if nepotism has not raised it’s ugly head, the people and Police of West Mercia surely deserve better.  This is a clear reminder of what can happen when you mix up Policing and Politics.  I blame Theresa May for that, Well Done, and for that, she is likely to be our next Prime Minister.

Please feel free to Unfollow me Mr Campion, but I have had just about enough of politics interfering with with Policing, and quite honestly, I’m GLAD I get didn’t the job as your Deputy.

None So Blind As Those Who Do Not Want To See

Apologies to any and all visually impaired, the title is in no way a dig at your good selves.  It is very much a dig at the Establishment and Main Stream Media that cannot see what is right in front of their eyes.

The BBC News ran a lengthy item about how the French Police are in danger of crumbling under their current pressures

Police under pressure: Who would be a French cop?

Very commendable, not a hint of sarcasm, it IS commendable, but why oh why can they not see that the same situation is in danger of arising in the UK.

Nearly 20.000 fewer Police Officers than 2010, and more still set to be discarded.  The French Police haven’t had to endure that scenario.

Constant criticism from politicians, press, IPCC, the list goes on.  Never ending criticism from all quarters.

The increasing risk of an attack, in some format, from ISIS or some other terrorist organisation.  The Intelligence network is good, but surely an attack will get through eventually?  I hope not but fear that it will.

Lack of support from the very top.  Many Forces suffer from this.  The Police Service has many bosses but many fewer Leaders.  The Police Service does not need to be defended at all costs against every issue.  If they are wrong then they are wrong and need to learn and move on, but when they are NOT wrong………well let’s just apologise and take the blame anyway.

All of these things, in varying proprtions, contribute to a lowered morale amongst the frontline troops.  We can see it in the French apparently but not at home.

Our Police, Armed Forces, NHS etc all deserve our SUPPORT more than ever at this time, not constant, often groundless, criticism.  When it is justified, and it sometimes is, fair enough.  When it is not, it should be rebutted robustly and publicly.