Tuesday, November 19, 2013

This is why we need to return to the Peelian principles.

The Peelian principles were introduced by the founder of the modern police force Robert Peel, they are simple, straightforward and very easy to comprehend, something that the righteous and ACPO absolutely hate as they take no account of political correctness or league tables...

  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
  3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
  4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
  5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
  6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
  7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
  9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
Police forces are routinely massaging crime figures to make hundreds of offences “disappear in a puff of smoke”, MPs have been told.
Official crime statistics are regularly skewed to make a police force’s performance appear far better than it is in reality, the House of Commons Public Administration Committee heard.
Retired and serving police officers gave evidence about techniques used to manipulate the figures - which they said were sanctioned by senior officers - such as downgrading offences to less serious crimes or persuading victims not to make a complaint.
In some cases crimes were only recorded if they were solved, and others were kept completely off the books if an offender could not be traced, the committee heard.
The disclosures will further undermine confidence in official Home Office statistics which claim crime is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
I don't know where the Telegraph gets the idea that the Home Office data on crime statistics is actually believed by anyone with an IQ over 90. Just chat to most people and you'd come away with the impression that crime both petty and major is a factor in their lives and they do not believe that somehow or other society is safer than it was. Indeed cases such as the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and the death of Ian Tomlinson suggest that the police themselves are perfectly willing to absolve themselves of criminal behaviour if so required. Nor have such high profile corruption cases such as Ali Dizaei helped the perception of the public towards the police being people you can trust.
It does seem at times that the police are no better than the criminals they are supposed to deal with and ACPO lead the way.
The old saying that 'a fish rots from the head' seems remarkably apt here.

1 annotations:

Jonty said...

ACPO which receives its funding from Government (tax payer) is a PLC so that it is not subject to the FOI act. It is set up to advise government on policing matters, so there is no transparency. What do they want to conceal? Why should we trust them, when at the very top they can hide as if they are handling commercial secrets.