Policing

click The Police Service for more reports about this service.

This article wrtten by a Police Inspector who retired in 1996. is recorded on the media wiki LaceyGreenHistory.com under Social Snapshots 1969-2000 incunder date 1996 Policing from the mid 20^th century – to the early 21st.

2025 – Is law and order about to break down, has it already with record phone thefts and shoplifting?

Has the public lost confidence in or respect for the police?

Whether it be shoplifting or public order, the signs are of serious concern.  How have we got here?

As someone who started in the police in the mid 1960’s when British policing was the envy of the world, I despair now in what it has become notwithstanding the modern aids and scientific developments.  Not the fault I might add of the men and women on the front line because many things have changed within the police, not least their leadership and training.  The one saving grace is the investigation of murder where we still excel.

Can you imagine how the police kept control when only police cars had radio contact and mobile/cell phones were unheard of,  indeed many people didn’t even have a land-line. Neither did we have CCTV or DNA identification.   Police cars were few in number and officers patrolled on bicycles or on foot.

I didn’t have the qualification required to join today or back then.  My application to join the police involved an entry test that indicated I could read and write and apply simple logic.  This was followed by an interview and then a character enquiry where they even questioned my neighbours.  Final acceptance followed a medical examination.

Training school involved living in dorms or small individual rooms.  It was considered a two year course but was crammed into an intensive 13 weeks – a lot of studying being done in the evening using an inch thick guide along with notes and handouts from lessons.  Crimes are defined by law and the wording is a very precise language so many everyday offences involved memorising the definition which made up the evidence of the crime.  Powers of arrest were similarly learnt and there was some practice at dealing with staged incidents.  Not all got through to the end.

The recruits believed in policing and invariably reported any undesirable behaviour outside of class and the likes of Wayne Cousins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard) would not have resisted the access to the women police in the evenings – he would never have passed out and been able to use the uniform to indicate safe passage.

Without exception everyone was subject to two years probation and could be dismissed at any time if they weren’t achieving their initial goals.  Relating the theory to practical situations was far more difficult and invariably involved learning from your mistakes, i.e. experience.  If you needed help you relied on a member of the public dialling 999 for you.  The fewer cars then patrolling did have radios.  However most incidents were allocated at what were called conference points – these were at public phone boxes or police boxes and you had a list of times that you were required to be at each one usually half an hour apart. Sergeants would know how capable you were and possibly meet you at the incident if necessary.  They also checked you were where you should be by meeting you at the conference points now and again.

I walked so much that I couldn’t sit down for very long without an urge to get up and walk again.  Walking with a tutor constable was an education in itself.  They might stop for a seemingly pointless conversation with someone out doing a bit of gardening or cleaning their car and before you knew it they were telling you about someone’s behaviour or other goings on locally that provided some intelligence for the neighbourhood for investigation or future use.  Information was recorded on a card index system in what was called the Collators office. Slow but very useful nevertheless.

My experienced tutor rarely looked at me when we were talking but everywhere else – he didn’t miss anything and suddenly you could be stopping someone to ask what they were up to.  “Where might you be going?” and “Where have you come from?” which might lead to, “What are you doing here then?” Followed by a search.  I might ask “Why did you stop him?” “Didn’t you see how he pretended not to see us.”  I had but didn’t recognise it for what it was – an indication of “guilt”.  Another learning experience from patrolling and there are many more subtle clues to be learnt.

Once you had those observational skills you could apply them to any patrolling method.  Emergency response could miss the suspect if they haven’t learnt to watch the behaviour of anyone as you approached the scene especially if you are announcing your approach with the siren - something else you learn to use wisely.

In the mid 20^th century we referred to policing as ‘The Job’ and although there was no particular emphasis on either word it did stem from the fact that there was no other job to compare.  It was different every day, fully tested all of the emotions and involved skills the entirety of which could not be found in any other job.  We also believed that ‘looking after the petty would mean the profound would take care of itself’ in the sense that these petty crooks would be deterred from greater ambitions.

In simple cases, such as a shoplifting, minor injury assaults or public order offences a sergeant could make the decision to charge an arrested suspect based on a witness statement.  There were other options such as a caution in appropriate circumstances.  The prisoner could be bailed to appear or taken to court the next morning.  If they pleaded guilty it was all over, with minimum paperwork, the officer or sometimes a Police Inspector telling the court what happened.  Not guilty meant an adjournment for a few weeks for a court space for a trial.  You would then record any additional evidence you knew was available.

CID were ultimately responsible for crime so more serious or complicated cases would merely move the charging decision to a Detective Sergeant or higher.  The gathered evidence in any case had to indicate the suspect’s guilt at least on the face of it because some very strong cases evidentially could be lost and weak cases won so best left, we believed, in letting the Court make the ultimate decision.  There were no guidelines, the officers decision was based on experience.   If the CID weren’t sure, they did have access to solicitor’s for advice and although they seldom went against this it was still their decision ultimately. Solicitors would also provide an advocate to present court cases in complicated or important cases – the cost of this being far less than paying for a full time CPS advocate.

As time went by we got our personal radios and were able to respond to incidents more quickly.  You could also shout for help, or advice and guidance when required. Then we got computers and instead of a long wait on the phone to establish ownership of a car or whether it was stolen, the response was almost instant, and computers provided for much more.

Only drawback was carrying all the kit and it kept increasing.  It made it difficult to run, although the modern vest does make them more secure.

This system had been developed in conjunction with the Home Office and senior officers who were working their way to the top through ability and merit which took the necessary time and experience to achieve.

1996. So where are we now?

The basis of policing is to prevent crime and (the now almost unseen) visible presence of police is probably the best deterrent – would you commit a crime with a police officer in view - followed by the certainty of detection and a meaningful punishment.  Detection requires:

·        a visit to the scene of crime to preserve evidence

·        a follow up from specialist crime scene examiners to gather evidence to link a suspect to that scene.

·        the interviewing of victims,  finding and interviewing witnesses

·        gathering the prolific video evidence now available

·        recording information that might identify suspects for this and future crimes – subject in itself.

·        tracing and interviewing them and searching their property.

·        Exploring other enquiries depending on the circumstances such as circulating descriptions, using mug-shots, visiting known suspects, using informants or setting up observations.  Not forgetting the patrolling officer.

There are many modern aids to assist this process - mobile phones that can take a picture for instant circulation or to preserve the scene of crime perhaps before a victim is removed to hospital.  Computer indices that record everything from fingerprints and MO¹ to DNA² and facial recognition.  Social media provides almost unlimited information.  Of course all of this requires time and resources.  

However things keep changing and not usually for the better.  

“Following cuts in Government funding, the Met has had to save over £600m since 2010. They have achieved this through a mixture of measures, including significant reductions in PCSOs and police staff, outsourcing back office functions and closing 70 police stations in the past five years. In 2010, there were 149 police front counters in the Met Police District. In May 2016, there were 73”.

In 2025 there are only 34 listed on the internet.  This just makes the officers more remote and unlikely to walk to their probably now non-existent beats.  Does it matter when the modern generation appear to want to do everything on-line including a lot of frauds, or scams as they are popularly known.  Notwithstanding we still have the very outrageous burglaries that make people apprehensive in entering their own home, robberies and assaults that can also terrify.

So we’ve gone from regularly seeing police on patrol to now telling someone when you see one, usually, I might add, flying past in a police car -  so different now to when we even had village bobbies.  Hardly any visible deterrent preventing crime.

It would be unfair however, to exclude the many other factors that affect policing and criminal behaviour.  Money is a factor and much now diverted to pay for the CPS and some computer systems that don’t assist detection but further reduce police contact with no improvement to policing.

People have always misbehaved but the way we now deal with criminal and even non-criminal behaviour has changed.  The adage we used in looking after the petty, has clearly not been applied to shoplifting and not only do we have a considerable and blatant increase but also in the increasing violence now associated with it which aligns it with the more serious offence of Robbery, save for the assault being after the theft – in Robbery the assault has to be before or at the time of the theft.  So technically its theft and assault.

Then there is the lack of effective punishment and I use shoplifting again where prison is unlikely even after numerous convictions. In fact prosecution is now unlikely. In late 2025 shoplifters are to be tagged, it seems, to prevent them going into certain areas – what if they ignore this, will there be a policeman available to go and find them and prevent a crime.  What will the sentence be for breaching their conditions?  Will they then be released to do it again – this is surely not the answer.

The law defines maximum sentences for any offence and Theft is 7 years (it used to be 5 so that’s a joke in itself). Shoplifting is theft, but Magistrates and Judges have restrictions on sentencing. Notwithstanding a need for consistency in sentencing, the lack of prison places is overriding and shoplifting was not considered a danger to the general public (ignore the price increases due to theft).  Recent evidence suggests that associated violence is increasing probably due to a removal of police involvement.

But what of prison, who’s fundamental purpose is to deter, punish, protect the public and perhaps rehabilitate.  It currently fails on all counts.  Apparent sentences are a fraud which may fool many but certainly not the criminal class.  They are aware of an automatic reduction for a guilty plea followed by half the sentence for so called ‘good behaviour’.  Gaoling them provides for immediate access to medical treatment, TV,  games rooms and food and lodgings - all free – and little chance of being cold over winter.

Prisoners seem able to get access to mobile phones allowing them to keep control of their criminal activities or circulate videos on the web.  Not to mention drugs.

Then occasionally ‘Time’ is further reduced to make room for new offenders.  Has no one worked out that the softer we are on punishment the more crime increases whereas less crime means more prison spaces available.

The police were until recently, investigating non-crime hate incidents which in the past would be regarded as name calling, teasing and or bullying.  It was worse then because you were stood nearby and it could be followed by some pushing and shoving or worse and they knew better than to cause serious injury so police were not interested as it would often be one word against another. Today it’s mostly on line where the evidence is irrefutable but some officers must spend hours trawling for offensive or insulting words – not usually a crime in itself but this may be the modern version of ‘looking after the petty’.  The clue is in the name – non-crime - so they can only issue warnings despite numerous incidents so it was another waste of police time.  Conversely there are stories of not attending burglaries and other crime scenes but merely issuing crime numbers for an insurance claim. The deciding factor on investigation, I suspect, being the likelihood of detection, the resources required or the availability of resources.

Nowadays they want officers to have a degree – subject immaterial- although they do now offer a more appropriate apprenticeship degree entry system that is earned between work sessions.

I don’t know why it was felt necessary to introduce the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - perhaps they thought the cost of too many acquittals were due to bad charging decisions.   Notwithstanding some benefit in the deterrence effect of being in jeopardy for the trial period and time leading up to it.

The introduction of the CPS took away that police ownership and put the brakes on all their activities, bogging the police down with a considerable increase in paperwork for each case they thought merited prosecution, often for the CPS to disagree and NFA² it. Sometimes discontinuing a case ‘as not in the public interest’ where there was no definition as to what was not in the public interest.  The CPS have their own website – see https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/directors-guidance-charging-sixth-edition-december-2020-incorporating-national-file for an example of instructions that didn’t exist before and didn’t seem to be needed before.  To be fair some charging decisions have been given back to police but with very strict limitations.

Different to the way we learnt and did the job back in the days before accelerated promotion, the CPS and the department known as the Police College.  The latter provide for police training and provide access to numerous guides for police, or anyone for that matter, with an overwhelming amount of information on how to police.  Look for yourself at just the Stop and Search Section at  https://www.college.police.uk/tags/stop-and-search.

So police are now inundated with instructions from the CPS, the Police College and their Senior Officers.

Law and order can be divided into practical and theory where the latter is the law and procedure.  It seems now that the craft or skill of policing has also become more theory.   What we learnt purely by practice is now provided on umpteen guidelines.  I can’t deny some of it will help but putting it into practice cannot be taught other than by practice.  In many forces, police are required to have degrees before they join or gain one as an apprentice.  Policing is about doing it and all the theory in the world, although guiding,  can’t make you good at it – it requires practice and experience and to a large extent a natural ability.

My experience was that some officers were better at interviewing, some at investigating, some at catching suspects via their street skills and some at just dealing with people – being good at all aspects of policing was rare in any one individual.  These were natural abilities that theory can improve but not as much as experience and all the training now available cannot provide everyone with the same ability.  

Is policing just adjusting to fit the modern age?

Perhaps, but everything I see and compare with how it was suggests we’ve removed too much from front line police control and given it to people who have never been on the front line or spent too little time on it.

Can it get worse?  Undoubtedly yes, the significant increase in population and different cultures with no change to resources and little integration.  Will the current beleaguered Government reduce spending further.

The Good News

In November 2025 the Government has introduced legislation to reverse the restrictions on sentencing and to provide a specific offence of assaulting a retailer.  A return I’m glad to say of common sense and a return to looking after the ‘petty’. It still has one problem – prison spaces.