I deliberately refrained from commenting on the G20 accusations against the Police. I didn't want to become an 'arm chair general'. I have no experience of policing public order situations (although I was trained in it in my previous job), so didn't think it was my place to comment. However, the unfair bias being portrayed in the media and the sheer self-righteous idiocy of some of the commentators really has just wound me up to snapping point. Especially this story.

Feared for her life??!! Then why charge at an officer with his baton drawn after being told to back off?

First off, why were the 'protesters' there? They were holding a vigil for Mr Tomlinson who died after (not necessarily because of) being pushed by a police constable. Did they know him? Were they personal friends in mourning? Or were they anti-establishment 'activists' desperate for a cause and an excuse to 'rub it in'? Anyone with a grudge against the police (usually people who've found themselves on the wrong side of the law) would have been drawn like a magnet to this vigil.

Here's the video, let's break it down:

0 - 14s : The Police NOT assaulting anybody. The crowd is peaceful and therefore so are the officers. No batons drawn, no helmets or shields. One chap tries to get through the cordon, he's stopped and turned away without using force.

15s: A protester is pushed by Police. We don't see why he's pushed so I won't try to justify it. However, I will say that, contrary to public opinion, constables are allowed to use reasonable force for a myriad of reasons other than self defence.

18s: The same protester then picks something up and moves towards the police, shouting. Why? He can speak to them and shout at them from where he was. Why does he want to move to within arms reach?

20s: Second push against this protester, which is certainly justifiable. The officer doesn't 'beat him up', doesn't resort to his 'weapons', just a push to stop an unpredictable, aggressive male from getting within arms reach.

Notice that the mood of the crowd changes in response to this. Jeering and shouting. The officers are horrendously out numbered and surrounded.

24s: In response to the change of mood of the crowd, the sergeant at the centre of this allegation then starts to move people back. It looks like he pushes someone off camera. The sergeant says "Keep back", "Move back". Suddenly the 'aggrieved' appears shouting, swearing and pointing at the sergeant. It appears she may have already received a push from the sergeant off camera and she objects because she's a woman and is therefore not allowed to be pushed by a man.

26s: The sergeant pushes the 'aggrieved' to keep her at bay. He says "Move back" again.

30s: This woman then charges back into shot while the sergeant is moving someone else back. Watch her shoulder and the sergeants reaction at 30 seconds. Does she hit him on the back? It's obscured by her head, but it does look like it. Even if she doesn't hit him, the back hand 'slap' is in response to her charging at him. The sergeant then forcefully says "Go away".

31s: The sergeant is forcefully pushed on his shoulder by someone off camera. Some reports made an issue of his size, well this push forces him to spin, despite his size. People are now able to reach the sergeant from out of his field of view. In response to this he adopts a defensive posture and backs off so no-one is behind him.

33s: Again he says "Get back, now".

35s: The 'aggrieved' then moves forwards into the safe space the sergeant has created between him and the crowd. She's got her arm raised and is holding something. The sergeant is now reaching for his baton. Other officers are shouting "get back".

38s: The sergeant strikes her once on the leg with his batton.

No-one else is hit. The sergeant doesn't go on a rampage. No-one else tries to get close to him or pose a threat to him so he doesn't use force on anyone else. And yes a woman can pose a threat to man, regardless of size difference.

I count 5 warnings from that sergeant, other officers are shouting as well. She is pushed back twice (if you presume once of camera) and is struck with the back of his hand. Yet she still moves towards him. If she feared for her life why not turn and run? If she wasn't intent on causing trouble or harm why not move back when instructed?

A man died after police contact. An investigation should take place to establish any wrong doing. But why are other stories and complaints like this even being entertained?!

The latest one is a complaint against a police officer for pointing a taser at someone in a raid. Not using it, no force involved, just pointing it. The 'evidence' is here.

Talk about jumping on the band wagon. Maybe a £50,000 newspaper deal has something to do with it. I love the quote from her boyfriend 'Jamie' at the bottom of the article, her first reaction was to get compensation but she was told it wouldn't stand up so... "She might as well get some money from the papers, everyone else does."

Maybe this woman wasn't going to cause trouble or harm the sergeant. Her actions suggest otherwise. Police, without the benefit of some Minority Report pre-crime unit, don't know if the person they're dealing with are going to do this or this or this or this or this or this... (just the first few hits from googling "police injury")

There should be a national debate. Not on police tactics, but what the public want from the police generally. Do they want a pink and fluffy police service, or a force to go toe to toe with criminals?

Mrs Miggins was sat in her living room watching telly one Friday night. Her refuge from the outside world, winding down after a hard week working in her pie shop by watching “People Who Used to Be on the Telly Falling Over, On Ice”.

Just as that guy who was in some soap in the 80’s attempts a triple axel back flip, a brick comes crashing through the living room window. She looks out of her window to see that there are only three people in the street. Three hooded male youths, walking away laughing.

Incensed at their disregard for the sanctity of her home and their carefree attitude to the crime they’ve just committed, she puts on her slippers, grabs her mobile phone and follows them while calling the police. She watches The Bill, CID will be on their way on blue lights with ASPs racked ready to go. Sun Hill’s best are just seconds away.

When the call comes over the radio, a PCSO colleague and I are close. It’s technically not within our ‘remit’, but my conscience won’t allow me to ignore it. Mrs Miggins doesn’t know exactly where she is, having followed these youths down the maze of back alleys in the area. There is a response unit on route from the town police station (which has been conveniently relocated from the town centre to the very outskirt of the town) so we attend to assist with an area search for Mrs Miggins.

We find her before the response unit does. By this time two of the youths have run off after realising they’re being followed. We find Mrs Miggins ‘discussing’ the incident with the third youth who was offended at being followed. Apparently it was one of the other two that threw the stone and he doesn’t know who they are. They threw it because they’ve fallen out with Mrs Miggins’ son at school.

The response unit arrives quickly, despite coming from the other end of the town, and gets the same story. They’ve got the youth’s ID from a provisional driving license. His given address checks out on his ID and the computer in the control room. He’s being placid and co-operative, but won’t grass on his mates. Mrs Miggins didn’t see who threw the stone. The response officers decide there’s not enough evidence or necessity for an arrest, the youth can be traced later if needed.

The response unit then go to search for the two that ran off, leaving my colleague and myself to take details for the crime report so it can be investigated in slow time if the response officers don’t find the two that ran off; and we explain the investigation process to Mrs Miggins.

The victim’s happy with the police’s response, happy with what’s going to happen next and why. We offer to arrange the boarding up of her window and do a bit of NPT hat and chat. Job done.

But my colleague then says something to Mrs Miggins that makes me cringe. “Next time, don’t put yourself at risk by following them, just call us.”

I thought Mrs Miggins had done the right thing. She refused to accept their behaviour and refused to let them get away with it. She wasn't attempting to issue some summary justice or take revenge. She hadn’t challenged them, just assisted us by trying to keep us updated as to where they were. And she felt safe in doing so.

Now someone from the police is telling her that it’s not safe to do that. She’ll take that statement as ‘official police advice’. Mrs Miggins now thinks she has to put up with being a victim, it’s not safe for her to do anything about it; it’s solely the police’s responsibility. She won’t tell rowdy kids on the back of the bus to behave any more in case she gets stabbed.

When it comes to this buzz phrase “the fear of crime”, I don’t believe we should be targeting resources at reducing the fear of crime. I think if we actually reduce crime (not just crime figures) then the ‘fear of crime’ will automatically be reduced. But I certainly don’t think we should be adding to people’s fear of crime.

I challenged my PCSO colleague over what she said. Her reply was along the lines of:

“A lone female following three male hoodies down a dark alley is dangerous. If we tell her it’s ok to do that and then next time she get’s beaten up then I’d never forgive myself and I’d get into trouble for giving her that advice”.

There are three things wrong with that statement that angers me, each worthy of a post in their own right.

1) That danger lurks around every un-risk-assessed corner. And the idea that all risk is unacceptable, regardless of the situation and context. Some things are actually worth the risk. A free, fair and safe society is one of them.

2) That my colleague put her possible future feelings of guilt before the victim’s feelings in the here and now.

3) That my colleague is so afraid of making a wrong decision or giving the wrong advice that she plays it safe to the extreme. (This one may receive its own post to explain my views on this fully)

I’m using my colleague as an example here, but I know these ideas are rife within society as a whole.I do acknowledged that she could have been in danger. What I object to is the idea that she was in danger. Mrs Miggins should be allowed to judge the risk for herself.

When Sir Robert Peel founded the police he said:

“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 on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

It’s time that society as a whole decided to take responsibility for deciding what is acceptable and fighting for it rather than leaving it to someone else to do.

I just hope Mrs Miggins still feels the same.

Sorry to all the readers of Planet Police.

There was a line at the end of my last post that was white text on a white back ground. Not supposed to be visible to everyone.

I didn't realise that Planet Police re-format the posts. I'm just glad I didn't include some of the other most popular search terms!

I am still learning.

I suppose my first true post should be about, well, PCSO's.

I know PCSO's are controversial. We've received a disproportionate amount of criticism in the press. Some may be justified, but overall it is disproportionate.

Judging from my experience of the fallout from the negative press coverage, the great British public seem unable to distinguish between subjective and objective "evidence". Unable to tell the difference between opinion and fact and seem unable to filter out the inflammatory, emotive language used to manipulate readers opinions. Because of this, we’ve arrived at a situation where the majority of the public have no idea what PCSO's really are. They don’t know what we can or can't do, and generally think we're Walter Mitty characters who joined so we could be paid to be nosey and bossy.

I'm not going to pretend that PCSO's are the solution to everything wrong with modern policing, but by explaining my view on the role I just might be able to sway a few people's opinions.

As I see it there are three main "strands" to our role:

1) Policing by supporting the work of Constables and shouldering some of their burden. This includes general police duties that don't require the power of arrest such as house to house enquiries, crime scene preservation, cordons and road blocks, welfare checks, school visits, dealing with minor anti-social behaviour, mediating neighbour disputes etc, etc.

2) Community Focus through working on a specific neighbourhood. We provide a constant contact to residents on our beat area, allowing us to build a relationship between the police and a community and help engender trust. We are in a position to gather intelligence and gain a detailed understanding of issues in the community.

3) High Visibility Reassurance. Because we don’t have the paperwork that comes with the powers of a Constable we have the time to be out and about on the area, providing a visible uniformed presence on the street. This reduces the fear of crime and reassures the local community and deters offenders.

(This is a simplification of the PCSO role, it’s my opinion and some other PCSO’s may disagree.)

That’s the theory anyway.

The first point I agree with. Constables are expensive. As a tax payer I don’t want to pay for a highly trained, highly qualified Constable so they can spend their time guarding a crime scene. I don’t want them being sent to deal with Mrs Miggins who thinks that parents should be sent to jail for allowing their kids to play football in a cul-de-sac, while a cash point robbery goes un-resourced. This makes sense to me, why can’t we deal with these low level incidents and tasks in a cost efficient way? It frees up resources, both human and financial, for use elsewhere. The majority of Constables I work with feel the same (even if they won’t admit it). The phrase “Is a PCSO not free to deal with that?” is heard quite a lot on the radio, and there’s almost always a frustrated sounding “Roger” when the control room says no.

The second point I also agree with. People like the fact they can just drop me an e-mail to let me know they want to chat about something on the area. The alternative is to spend ages trying to get through to the call centre, trying to explain the problem to someone who doesn’t know the area, and then it being dealt with by an officer who doesn’t know the area, is different to the officer that was sent last time and generally has better things to do. It’s also an excellent opportunity to gather intelligence. In my division around 80% of intelligence forms are submitted by PCSO’s. Being dedicated to an area also means we can tackle the root of problems. Rather than treating problems as a series of isolated incidents, we can identify “hot spots” and solve them in the long term. If you’ve ever seen where the problem teenagers on your area are buying their alcohol and thought “Someone should do something about that” then speak to your local PCSO. If you’ve reported motorbikes riding on a footpath loads of times and thought “Why don’t they just put a chicane on it?” then speak to your local PCSO.

The third point about being a high visibility reassurance I... don’t agree with *gasp*. We may reassure a few people or deter some crime but not the majority. We don’t have the powers to deal with crime. How can we reassure people that the police are out and about on the streets dealing with crime when we just can’t deal with crime? If we walk around a corner and are faced with a street fight, burglary in progress or any other ‘real’ crime then there’s not much we can do. Yes, we can “observe and report” or call a constable, but so can a member of the public. Using PCSO’s in this way is a bluff (in my opinion). The public know this, and feel patronised by a government who thinks that a hi-vis jacket is enough to make people feel safe. And that feeling safe is more important than making sure they actually are safe. Hi-vis jackets don’t reassure people, officers with big sticks, handcuffs and integrity reassure people, while at the same time making sure they actually are safe.

I know it’s controversial for a PCSO to disagree with a fundamental aspect of the role and probably the main reason the role was created. I feel that PCSOs can still contribute significantly towards policing by supporting Constables and working with a local community. That’s why I’m a PCSO and enjoy it. What I don’t like is being used to trick the public into thinking everything’s alright because I’m walking down their street with a police radio. We’re not a replacement for Constables and the government shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

So what’s the solution? I don’t think it’s getting rid of PCSOs. PCSOs offer a value for money solution to local community issues, things that were below the attention of the police and went unchallenged before PCSOs came along.

If we were designated with all the powers available to us in legislation then things may be different. If I could issue PNDs for the full range of offences, detain with force and carry handcuffs and PAVA spray (all powers that can currently be designated to PCSOs if the Chief Constable chooses to do so) then I could still fulfil the first two points, while at the same time providing a real deterrent and reassurance without picking up rafts of extra paperwork and becoming station bound.

It may not be a well structured argument, more of a rant really. But that’s my tuppence worth on PCSOs without going into the fallacy of the “omni-competant Constable” or the “non-confrontational” nature of our role. That’s for another post...

So, my first post.

I am a PCSO, Police Community Support Officer. I have been for little over a year now. Recently I've been reading Police Blogs, there are loads from Constables but only one from a PCSO and he's just gone on to be a Constable. I've spotted a gap in the market...

I'm not going to use this blog to vent my views on why PCSO's are Gods gift to the world and why you should be grateful to have us. I hope to give a balanced and, as far as possible, objective account of working as a PCSO, interspersed with my personal views on anything I feel worthy of mentioning (it is my blog after all).

I wouldn't describe myself as a writer. I have more of a mathematical brain, I was never very good at creative writing so don't expect any award winning prose here.

Instead I hope to erode some of the misconceptions and prejudices about PCSO, and probably re-affirm some others.

I've got lots of ideas bubbling for my first few posts so we'll see what happens.

Kevin