A Day In The Life...

Three police officers whose "honesty and integrity" have been questioned by the police watchdog will not face disciplinary action over allegations that they lied to try and discredit Andrew Mitchell at the height of the plebgate affair.

So reports the Guardian. It was pretty clear at the time that the policeman's account was somewhat inconsistent, not that means anyone will be disciplined. Interestingly though the former Tory whip states:

"It is a decision which will undermine confidence in the ability of the police to investigate misconduct when the reputation of the police service as a whole is at stake.

Well yes but it's hardly anything new, but the only reason it makes the news in this instance is precisely for the reason he is a former Tory whip. Mitchell continues:

"My family and I have waited nearly a year for these police officers to be held to account and for an apology from the police forces involved. It seems we have waited in vain."

At this point one might consider that those of Liverpool have waited nearly 25 years for police officers to be held to account in one of the biggest police corruption scandals in UK history. A cover up that went right to the top of the political tree and remained so for years. Mr Mitchell's concerns are not police corruption per se but those that affect him directly

As someone who has been stopped and searched under a Section 60 (a policy introduced incidentally by the Tories) more than once and had £20 notes ‘confiscated’ from my wallet because “they could potentially be used as weapons” the disclosure that policemen have; “honesty and integrity” issues comes as no surprise whatsoever.

Shake And Make Up?

According to Adam Boulton from Sky news...

I think we can safely say if the assault had been the other way around, Plod's response would have been different. A point made by Mr Holmes himself:

Asked whether he would press charges against the publisher and LBC presenter, Holmes said "it is up to the police to do their job. You've got to ask what would you do if the roles were reversed and if I did that, I'd be in a police cell."

Update: Iain Dale receives a Police caution which means he must have accepted his guilt.

In order to safeguard the offender's interests, the following conditions must be met before a caution can be administered:

• there must be evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction;
• the offender must admit the offence;
• the offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to being cautioned.

And he issues an apology

And deletes his "absurd bravado" post. Sorry 'tough boy' it don't work like that on t'internet. And he deletes the post even though writing this as part of his apology:

On the first point [of removing the blogpost], I felt it important people should be able to have their say. I will have to live with the justified criticisms for a long time.

A Waste Of Space

Despite coming as no real surprise, I had another lesson today on the uselessness of PCSO's. Above is pictured a car parked outside my property this afternoon. As is abundantly clear by the picture it leaves no room for a pushchair to pass by let alone Mrs TBF's wheelchair.

So I visit neighbouring properties in an attempt to ascertain the owner, to no avail. I decide then to report it to the Police. Parking on a pavement is not actually an offence in itself, but under the Town and Police Clauses Act (1847) causing an obstruction is. In addition, PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) gives the Police the power to arrest any person in order to prevent an obstruction to the highway. Failure to do so could also be argued that they are not complying with their duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. I should make clear at this point I had no intention of wanting any kind of ticket on the vehicle in question - I just wanted the car moved...pronto.

Anyway when I called the non-emergency Police number, the nice chap at the end of the phone gave me a Unique Reference Number (URN) which is usually, in my experience, a Police term to mean sod off. And so two (rather young) PCSOs turn up at my doorstep 20 minutes later, only then to tell me they didn't have the power to do anything other than to place a warning sticker on the windscreen that, and I quote; "looks like an official fine but isn't". But helpfully - I use the term loosely - they informed me if it happened again then " a [real] Policeman would get involved". One wonders if it isn't illegal the first time why is it the second?

The PCSOs in question were clearly aware of the driver's address, telling me unwittingly - or perhaps otherwise - that "the driver had recently moved into the local street", but "unfortunately they were unable to do anything". On that information and with a quick Google search by myself I established where the driver lived. Subsequently I visited his property and after establishing he was owner of said car, I informed him firmly, but politely that his car had to move, which he duly did. Given that the PCSOs were aware of the registered address, why were they unable to do this?

So, in conclusion, what are the point of Police Community Support Officers again?

PlebGate

It's hard to know what to make of so-called 'plebgate' with so many differing accounts. Taking sides between the government and the police seems an anathema to me. But with more evidence it does appear that the Met have yet again acted above the law:

[Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell] spoke out during a Channel 4 News programme which alleged that a police officer had posed as a member of the public backing the police's story.

None of this will come as a surprise to us 'plebs', used to such actions for years, but there however is a perverse satisfaction to be had that such plod behaviour has reached the upper echelons of government:

Mr Mitchell said: "And it's certainly shaken my lifelong support and confidence in the police.

You don't say...

Complete Contempt

Following my previous post, something I was unaware of until today was that the PCC election is being held using the Alternative Vote. The same system that was comprehensively rejected by the voters. They're laughing at us and can't even be bothered anymore to hide it.

Still, at least we can take some small amusement from the comment below from Tim Montgomerie on Facebook who is "In the eyes of most MPs, Montgomerie ... now one of the most influential Tories outside the cabinet."

Just voted for Angus Macpherson as Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire. Voted UKIP as 2nd preference.

Not Voting

Funny how when I turned 18, the right to vote seemed to be a huge privilege and one I was proud of. I missed voting in the 1992 GE by 2 months but had the opportunity to vote for the first time in the Newbury by-election a year later. It was a privilege which meant I consciously made the symbolic effort to myself of walking to a polling station rather than postal voting or voting by other means.

I've always tried to exercise my right to vote, whether it be a General Election, a local election or even, through very gritted teeth, EU Parliamentary elections. Today though I will break that habit. I will not be partaking in the election of a Police Commissioner. I have shredded my polling card, thus boycotting the process.

Revealingly as politicians' have recently sensed the public discontent about our political processes and lack of accountability, as presciently foreseen by the notorious 1971 FCO 30/1048 document on the consequences of joining the EEC...

...the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government.

....they seek to confer upon us as a consequence ever more voting: devolution, more devolution, the stitch up that was the AV referendum and Cameron's failed policy of English mayoral referendums earlier this year. The right to put a cross on a bit of paper is a tool used by politicians to pretend they believe in democracy so by implication arguing to give power to the people, but in practice it means nothing at all.

It's the reason most unaccountable institutions use voting on such terms as a means of trying to establish legitimacy; obviously the EU Parliament, the Supreme Soviet and there's a very good reason why referendums are banned in Germany. Voting means nothing without being backed up by real power.

And so we come to another fake 'election' - those of PCC candidates. Conservative MP Nick Herbert, who in the Spectator seems to argue that the solution to low turnouts is have another election which will have a low turnout, says:

What proportion of the vote permits [the BBC] to declare any election a failure? Because Parliament didn’t set one.

Hilary Benn was elected to the Commons in a by-election on a turnout of less than 20 per cent. Was he declared to have no standing as an MP? What about the councils that rule with a fraction of the votes of their local electorate? And forgive me if I’ve missed it, but when did the BBC ever question the legitimacy of MEPs (turnout in 1999, 23 per cent), never mind the European Commission?

Yes, declining voter engagement in all elections is a real issue. But as the former President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Ken Jones, said on Monday, this is a bigger question, a trend which PCC elections can hardly be expected to buck.

 So then he argues without a sense of irony:

[PPCs] will hold office by will of the people, not the patronage of politicians or the wisdom of an appointments commission

No it won't, the very likely low turnout will ensure the office is not by the will of the people. Not only that, will it solve; lying cover up or even the Police acting above the law? We all know the answer to that one.

So very few positives to this latest gimmick, but oh boy are there negatives. What we will have in return is a politicisation of the Police force. It's bad enough already, as the case of Damian Green shows, but now it will be legitimate. A point illustrated via Witterings:

“This morning a Labour spokesperson said that while Labour initially objected to the role of Police Commissioner being created, they had decided to enter Labour representatives for the post to enable them to hold the government to account for all the police budget cuts. Great.  Not to represent the local people as intended – but to yet again use and abuse a position in order to attack the Coalition.  Just what we need Mr. Oborne ? I thought this article may be a wind-up – but the last two sentences suggest otherwise.”

Inspector Gadget calls it fantasy politics, and rightly so. No-one needs a degree in history to workout the consequences of politicised police force in times of economic troubles.

How long, one wonders, before a scandal erupts, where a PCC of a certain party persuasion is advised by a government of the same party to lean on 'his' police force whose constables are investigating a corrupt MP of the same party?

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Being Rude

Andrew Mitchell, the Government’s chief whip, is in the sticky stuff for apparently being rude to a Police Officer. Unfortunate timing given that two Police Officers were shot dead this week.

Blogger Max Farquar has this quote from Tory cheerleader in chief, Iain Dale, attempting to defend the Mitchell's actions:

If we’re going to say that all politicians should resign if they, in a momentary lapse of judgement, lose their temper then we won’t have many politicians left

So it's worth noting that Mrs Dale hasn't always been so tolerant of politicians' momentary lapses of judgement particularly of the Labour variety, an example entitled "Gordon Brown's Top Tantrums":

We're all eagerly awaiting the serialisation of Andrew Rawnsley's book in tomorrow's Observer, and I, relishing doing the BBC News Channel paper review at 11.20pm tonight, followed by the Radio 5 Live on at midnight. To prepare us for the revelations the book will no doubt contain about Gordon's temper tanties, I thought it might be good to refresh our memories about existing account's of the dour one's demeanour.

....how on earth did the Labour Party allow this man to become PM?

Or this:

Quite why the Labour Party are happy to have a proven bully defend Gordon Brown against charges of, er, bullying, is a little bizarre to say the least. He completely lost his temper with BBC News Channel interviewer Ben Brown this morning.

Tribal politics eh? A bubble existence obviously not for the benefit for the rest of us...

Hillsborough

The Hillsborough disaster was a watershed moment in British sporting history. Not only and obviously for the poor 96 souls who lost their lives, and their families, but also the impact it had subsequently on sporting grounds. It instigated a revolution in stadium safety both here and in world football.

It was, however, a disaster that wasn't a one off, it was a long time coming and inevitable. When the initial reports came in on that fateful Saturday most fans knew immediately which end of the ground it was in - crushing in antiquated terraces was the norm. I'm sure I wasn't the only to view the images on television and think to oneself: "there but for the grace of God go I..."

At the time Britain's grounds could claim the worst safety record of any other developed nation, despite no fewer than eight official reports into crowd safety between 1924-85. Hillsborough was no freak, and we all knew it, it was the culmination of complacency, neglect, low investment, bad management and prejudice. It's no coincidence that in the 20 or so years since the famous Taylor Report, who recommended significant changes to stadia safety, that no major incident has occurred, yet in the 20 years prior to 1989, we had involving British fans; Ibrox 1971, Bradford fire, Heysel, and of course Hillsborough.

We also knew from the outset, that Hillsborough was a cover-up, particularly by South Yorkshire Police. Whatever ones thoughts on the game of football, or the futility of sport in general, a parent with a child in a so-called civilised society should be able to attend a sporting game on a Saturday afternoon and return home safely after. And when that doesn't happen there should be a proper inquiry into all institutions involved. With Hillsborough, though, it was clear from the start that a major cover-up ensured: UEFA, FIFA, the Thatcher Government, MPs (even recently), the media, the coroners, and most notably South Yorkshire Police all closed ranks (for many years Sheffield Wednesday refused to have a memorial at their ground, like it was an embarrassment). The blame was pinned quite decidedly by Lord Justice Taylor on South Yorkshire Police.

Yet today I'm surprised with the contents of the publication of an independent report into the disaster. I must confess that I was cynical from the outset: the files would be delayed 'till the 30 year rule comes in 2019, they would be redacted and they would be incomplete. But I was wrong, and even for a hardened cynic like myself, when it comes to the behaviour of police at football I'm rather taken aback by some of the revelations:

• Some 164 police statements were amended, he says. Many removed comments attacking the police.
• Officers carried out police national computer checks on the dead to impugn their reputation.
• Blood tests were also taken from the dead to see if they had been drinking, including from children.
• At the time of the Taylor Report [Margaret Thatcher] was briefed by her private secretary that the defensive and – I quote - “close to deceitful” behaviour of senior South Yorkshire officers was “depressingly familiar.”
  And it is clear that the then government thought it right that the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire should resign.
• Evidence that a number of the dead survived "for a significant period" beyond the 3.15pm cut-off point imposed at the original inquest
• ...a box of files containing police statements littered with hand-written notes saying ‘remove the last page’, ‘exclude the last paragraph’ and ‘rewritten as requested’.

This is wholesale corruption and cover-up by the authorities, one that hasn't come to light in detail for over 23 years.

The absence of a coroner’s report applying a verdict compatible with this assertion, or the experiences of all those who witnessed and survived Leppings Lane, is as incomprehensible and reprehensible as the actions on that initial April day.

When the coroner, Stefan Popper, decided the deaths were accidental 90 days after April 15 - on the grounds of what we can now see was tainted and doctored evidence - his judgement became emblematic of the most insidious representation of the second, institutional disaster; of the deceptions, the cover-ups, the lies and the closeted public 'servants' who idly kept their distance and shuffled off to their comfortable retirement as peers of the realm when they knew justice had not been done.

I haven't had time yet to read through the entire report but tribute must be made to the 'justice for the 96' campaign who never gave up.

Free Speech Goes AWOL

Old Holborn highlights a rather worrying development this afternoon regarding the on-going, and now getting very tedious, racism row between footballers' Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra:

Manchester United's game with Liverpool was preceded by the police confiscating several thousand copies of the Red Issue fanzine because of a spoof cut-out-and-keep poster showing a Ku Klux Klan hood on its back cover [seen above].

Leaving aside the fact that normal laws don't often apply to football fans, the Police's justification for such actions are deeply sinister indeed (my emphasis throughout):

The police's match commander, Ch Supt Mark Roberts, said:

"Officers are now seizing the fanzines and in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service we will take appropriate action against anyone either found selling this particular fanzine or provocatively displaying the image in public.

Let's be clear that no complaints by the general public were received regarding this image, instead the Police have taken this action upon themselves:

"Officers have also been made aware of a T-shirt on sale outside the ground that is also deemed to be offensive. We are also seizing these items and anyone found wearing one will be required to remove it and hand it to police.

Deemed to be offensive by whom? Oh just the Police, so...

"At this stage we have arrested one man in relation to the T-shirts on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence and we will be continuing to work with the clubs to minimise the impact of the image, which we consider to be offensive.

"I have taken this cause of action as both items are potentially offensive and we cannot be in a situation where hundreds or thousands of people were displaying offensive images at a football match. The consequences of taking no action could have resulted in public order incidents inside or outside the ground."

To minimise the impact of the image? So a situation now arises where the Police can now confiscate arbitrarily, reading material because they deem it offensive even if no-one else did. And unbelievably and with deep irony the image confiscated is actually accusing Suarez, and by extension Liverpool, of racism - criticising and ridiculing his recent racist comments.

So, in a bizarre, ridiculous and very surreal twist, what is in effect anti racist material is impounded by the Police on the grounds of being potentially a racially aggravated public order offence.

One wonders what Ch Supt Mark Roberts would do if these chaps had been British.

On The Rack

Says it all really: the lying PM, the lying Media, the corrupt MP, the incompetent Policeman

This Sunday My Basic Civil Rights Will Be Suspended

Ever since the London riots the MSM has been churning out copious gobs on a stick offering various opinions on the causes of the riots and either calling for harsher sentencing or conversely more 'understanding' of the rioters - some are even blaming the coalition cuts. Unsurprisingly the Lib Dems have been found sitting on the 'sympathy for the criminal' side of the fence as expressed by their condemnation of the four 4 year sentence of two Facebook users who tried to incite rioters.

However despite all the arguments, on Sunday life and suspension of basic rights will continue unabated for a significant number of people, a situation which I suspect will pass without much comment or complaint. As regular readers know The Boiling Frog is a supporter of a particular football team and on Sunday we face our bitter local rivals - Oxford United whom we haven't played for 10 years. Though, as a derby game, it's not on the same scale in terms of numbers as a Celtic vs Rangers or Millwall vs West Ham match the passion is just as intense and the potential for disorder is similar. As a result it has been issued with a category 'C plus' rating- the highest category awarded to a football match for anticipated violence. What this C+ category actually means in practice is that there will be two sets of thugs on the streets.

Because of the nature and profile of the game one set of thugs will consist of knuckle-dragging big hitters who will haul themselves out of their respective rain-soaked hovels with either the intention of trying to 'take' the town or 'defend' the town. Unpleasant as it is, the vast majority of peaceful fans, myself included, will be left largely untroubled by these hooligans who have a perverse code of honour of not attacking ordinary fans.

In contrast there's the other set of thugs which the ordinary law-biding fan will be a lot more wary of and it's only a small mercy that they can be easily identified. They wear the same uniform, have steel toe-capped boots, riot helmets and other paraphernalia - essentially looking like an army. They will be given every tool available by the state (short of firearms); helicopters, dogs, riot shields, mobile CCTV vans and, crucially because it's a C+ game, the ability to act above the law. I'm of course referring to the Police, and unlike the aforementioned group of thugs, their thuggery will be indiscriminate - everyone will be fair game for a whack of the baton (or worse); men, women & children.

Years ago I apologised to a copper I lived next door to in - as later turned out mistaken - shame on behalf of my fellow supporters for ruining his Sunday off because our match had been moved which meant he was called in. Revealingly his response was;

"Don't worry, it means I'm allowed to hit people and get paid double-time for the privilege"

From experience I have no reason to doubt his sentiments. I've been spat at, punched, grabbed by the throat to the point of being strangled and batoned by Police Officers for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time and trying very politely to exercise my rights. I've seen much worse happen to fellow supporters, and I've got off very lightly compared to others:

Until 11 September last year, the police were rather admired in the Meyers household. All that changed in a few dreadful seconds on Reading station, when the two of them were forced to watch as officers handcuffed Tony's older son, 20-year-old Leeds University student Tommy, forced him on to the ground, and set a police dog on him. The dog bit fiercely into Tommy's face – he couldn't even raise his handcuffed hands to protect himself. The injuries will be with him for the rest of his life, partly because the police refused him access to antibiotics for 14 hours, by which time infection had taken hold.

And:

Augur politely appealed to [the Police]. "I told them that he was a 15-year-old boy for whom I was responsible," says Augur, but he was curtly rebuffed, and the police started pushing people. "I was knocked into my younger son, John. The dog handler allowed the dog sufficient rein so that it could get at my other son, James. I saw the dog sink his teeth into James's lower leg. It was obvious he was in pain. I shouted to the police: 'That's my son, let him go.'"

Augur kicked out at the dog. The animal released James and turned on him, sinking its teeth into his leg. He fell to the floor. "I saw the dog in my face. I was horrified and frightened."

The dog was pulled away, and two or three policemen seized him. "I was on the floor with them holding me down. I felt a tremendous kick to my right side underneath my armpit. I was gasping for breath. I really thought I was going to die. A few seconds later I felt someone standing on my back, holding me down with their foot.

"I managed to look to my right and I saw two policemen holding James on the floor. He was shouting: 'Help me, Dad, help me.' A policeman punched him in the face while he was being held down on the floor.

Throw a piece of chewing gum at a football match?

A Luton Town fan has been banned from attending any football matches for three years for throwing chewing gum at a game.

Martin Wilson, of Townsley Close, Luton, pleaded guilty to ‘throwing an unknown missile’ at visiting supporters contrary to Sections 2 and 5 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991.

Wilson was also fined £615 which included court costs.

With the advent of camera phones, it should be easy to record this stuff for future complaints but any attempt to use such a device openingly is enough to ensure an even more robust Police response. Before 2008 cameras were just forcibly removed even though there was no legal basis for that to happen, now the Police can, and do, simply invoke Section 76 of the 2008 Counter Terrorism Act.

Sharp eyed readers will have noticed that my game has been moved from a Saturday fixture to an early Sunday kick-off. The reason being according to the Football Intelligence Officer (an oxymoron if ever there was one) is to limit alcohol consumption:

Acting Detective Sergeant James Neighbour, Swindon’s football liaison officer, said reducing the amount of drinking time before the match was the main reason it was moved.

He said: “It was a decision made in consultation with the football club.

“It was decided firstly it should be an early kick-off to prevent too much alcohol being consumed before.

“And the reason for holding it on the Sunday is to negate any disorder as much as we can. The fact the next day is a working day dissuades people from drinking as much as perhaps they would on a Saturday.

The key words here are; "too much alcohol being consumed". That bit is true but it would be a fallacy to assume that the Police want to prevent fans visiting the pub before a game altogether thus to be stone cold sober - and the reason is simple.

By allowing a certain amount of restricted pub time before a game gives two advantages. Not only does it mean that the Police can legally 'kettle' you in a confined area but that you've been in a pub helps their defence later on - "yes your honour not only was he attending a match where there was potential for trouble causing significant problems for the Police but he spent a couple of hours in the pub beforehand". That way they have the perfect defence for their more 'robust responses'. Whether you had spent that time drinking coke in the pub becomes irrelevant - you're a football fan and you've been in a pub so de facto your basic rights have been suspended.

And as you enter the pub that you have been forced to march to courtesy of a Police escort, you will be searched, your wallet rummaged through, details taken (even though illegal under Section 60), filmed by Police camcorders and your picture taken with a camera that has an oversized flash on it - that temporarily blinds you.

This Sunday undoubtedly the papers will be crammed full of more articles on the London riots with lots of 'chin-stroking-what-does-it-all-mean' commentary, meanwhile in a small corner of Wiltshire countless law-abiding citizens will be subjected to Police actions that will be contrary to the rule of law.

Even Shami Chakrabarti, someone I'm a frequent critic of, understands these concerns well:

"I have come to be horrified at some of the treatment that law-abiding fans have experienced. We are in danger of demonising anyone who goes to football matches."

And PCC commissioner Nicholas Long:

"I am surprised that we see as few complaints and referrals as we do from policing of football matches. The police should not imagine that the majority of people attending football matches are bent on violence."

But I suppose expecting any of those self-appointed experts in the media to care is a bit like asking for the moon on a stick.

Labour MP Objects To Democracy

How else can these comments, in relation to elected Police Commissioners, by Labour MP Kerry McCarthy be described?

...and how do we ensure that someone elected predominantly by voters in rural areas gives due weight to the issues affecting inner-city Bristol? How do we stop them pandering to populism? I have real concerns that we’ll end up electing a demagogue or worse. After all, the track record on elected mayors isn’t great…

"The record on elected mayors isn't great". Wonderful arrogance, the wishes of the electorate aren't up to Kerry's standard. That's the funny thing about democracy you might not get the result you like. If there's a danger of electing a demagogue (i.e. someone you don't agree with) perhaps we should abolish democracy altogether? Oh wait Kerry, you've done a good job of acheiving that already. And every one of her objections, highlighted above, could be used against electing MPs. After all the track record in elected Members of Parliament isn't so great either.

Ms McCarthy's real agenda is contained in the phrase 'pandering to populism'. A euphemism to smear those who have to live with genuine problems but whose ideas regarding practical solutions are at odds with hers. Critics of populism essentially argue that if you allow all the hoi polloi to have a say; "then...well... they come up with the most inappropriate ideas - they need to be told the 'right' direction to go in". Another way of looking at the proposals of elected Police Commissioners is that they will be more receptive to the wishes of the public because of the power of the ballot box, rather than the top-down out-of-touch priorities imposed by Government.

And as a victim of crime on a number of occasions it's pretty clear to me (and I suspect many others) where Police priorities really lie. Been burgled? Don't bother ringing in unless you need to claim on insurance. The response you will get when you report it is (and I received on 3 separate occasions); "Look, we can't be arsed to visit, so here's your URN for insurance purposes, now sod off." I wonder if Ms McCarthy considers that to be due weight given to the issues affecting certain people?

Have a disabled wife? In a wheelchair? She parks in one of Tesco's disabled parking bays, clearly displaying a blue badge. She then gets verbally abused by a middle aged man who thinks she isn't 'crippled enough' and subsequently physically threatens "to knock her head off". Big lump of a husband (me) returns from putting trolley back, intervenes to protect said wife. Guess who the Police issued a Section 5 to because it was easier to process. Go on you'll never guess.

It's long overdue that the state starts responding to the wishes of the people they serve. That's what Ms McCarthy is really scared of.

Set Us Free

I've only just seen this article, which was published yesterday in the Telegraph written by the indispensable police blogger Inspector Gadget. It's well worth a read in full, here is a sort of summary of what he says:

...of the 144,000 serving police officers, only 11 per cent of us are "visibly available" at any one time to deal with complaints from the public.

I'm not at all surprised, and no real police officer will be. It's because there are, in fact, three separate police forces.

The first is the politically driven caste of senior officers, who – under New Labour – spent their lives rushing to publicise the Home Office's latest wheezes about "Partnership Working", "Community Engagement" or "Citizen Focus".

The second police force is largely made up of people who have never arrested anyone: supervisors, auditors, accountants, diversity consultants, health and safety advisers, monitoring groups and crime managers.

That leaves those of us in the third police force, who do the protecting and serving: the patrol and neighbourhood officers who respond to emergency calls (and many not-so emergency calls); the CID; and the custody teams who deal with prisoners.

Go go Gadget...