I have hinted a few times on Twitter
and Facebook that I think Chief Police Officers are crying wolf a little bit
about the cuts they face. Not that the
cuts aren’t real, or savage, or deep.
Just that, in order to emphasise their political point and to try to
gain public support for their opposition to them, they are selecting examples
that they think will have the greatest impact.
I suppose that is human nature.
They cite forensic examinations only at odd-numbered houses; not
visiting every residential burglary; not investigating serious assaults; email
us your own scenes of crime photos – all these have been chosen for maximum
public impact and to shock. Because the withdrawal
of officers seconded to diversity outreach projects, or writing ‘Equality
Impact Assessments’ (which, by the way, you really should search for on your local
force’s website), or ceasing to cover for local authority agencies which refuse
to maintain a 24-hour service just do not excite the vast majority of the
population in the same way, do they?
Even if, truth be told, they should be the first place the axe falls.
They have though, now, gone too
far. By refusing to enforce road
closures and thereby depriving towns of their traditional Remembrance Day parades
the leaders in places like Essex and South Yorkshire (although I am sure there
are others) have struck gold. I can just
imagine the gleeful grins at the Chief Officer group meetings when somebody
came up with the idea. Because not only
does it strike at the heart of the community, not only does it give a hugely
visible demonstration to everybody of the wickedness of the cuts but it also
fits in neatly with the mistaken, but oh-so politically-correct view that Poppy
Day, parades and honouring our war dead is just a little bit right-wing,
nationalistic and of course, racist. So it
is a win-win: Demonstrate the effects of the cuts and wave the flag for how
on-message and inclusive we are too, all in one two-line decision. And all the
opposition will be turned on the cuts, not on the Police decision. I mean, we aren’t going to see the Epping
Royal British Legion instructing counsel for a judicial review, are we? As much as I would love to.
Obviously nobody had the wit to
realise or suggest that the dishonour is equally applicable to the many black,
Asian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish men and women who have given their lives
for this country.
I have advised reading this piece
– http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7908488/Free-the-police-and-save-billions.html
– before. It shows that our policing is
ridiculously expensive, that it is the bureaucracy and the non-core activities
which have added in the cost. Strip
these away, concentrate on policing and the available funds, even after cuts,
will be able to provide much more.
As a minor example, consider the ‘Equality
Impact Assessments’ I referred to above.
My local force, Suffolk Constabulary, has 80 or so of these available on
its website. Covering many different
policies and practices. Each is a
multi-page document, written by somebody, monitored by somebody and updated by
somebody. Who knows, maybe they are even
sometimes consulted by somebody and found useful, but this might be
fanciful. They contain a few gems – my favourite
so far is here:
It is an assessment of the impact of their traveller encroachment
enforcement policy (which, as far as we residents see, in practice is to do nothing) on transsexual
travellers resident on an illegal site. Forgive
me if I have an advantage here, but I have spent quite a few hours of my life
on traveller sites, for one reason or another, back in the days when the policy
wasn’t to do nothing. And not only have
I never seen a transsexual, the attitudes displayed towards anybody not
conforming to their distinct lifestyle and principles was less than tolerant,
so much so that I suspect Suffolk Constabulary’s policy might be the least of
worries for that individual. Where does
all this utter garbage come from? Well,
there is a requirement in law for each Chief Officer (i.e. Chief Constable) to
certify that all new policies have been assessed for their potential impact on
equality. Which of course is fine,
except that it has spawned a whole new assessment industry, costing not just
paper and ink but people and time.
Now,
staying with Suffolk Constabulary, there is a certain sharing of Chief Officer
functions with its neighbours in Norfolk, but the salary costs for the joint top
team will be at least £500,000 per year.
I do not begrudge them one penny
of their salaries, but I expect that for our money we might expect a bit of
leadership and responsibility, in all areas.
And one of those ought to be equality impact. Why do they need a team, an assessment, a
document written by others? Surely they
have the intelligence and experience to look at their new policy and decide
that it complies, or needs to be changed to comply. Why can they not just be a leader and do
this, cutting out all the bureaucracy and cost of these documents full of
drivel?
Did anyone just shout out “Responsibility”? Of course, how silly of me. If the assessment is done by others and it is
wrong, there is the corporate responsibility / organisational contrition /
institutionalised incompetence defence still available. If somebody puts his or her name to it then
there is always the chance they might have to take responsibility
themselves. And 21st century
Police leaders really don’t know how that works. Perhaps they could outsource it? The assessments I mean – they outsourced personal
responsibility years ago. That might
save some money and we could get back to having Remembrance Day parades.
