Read on Twitter
The incident in Islington illustrates the asymmetric reporting of policing perfectly: on a scale of 1 to 100 the brief use of a restraint method which caused no actual harm (which appears unlikely to have been likely to do so), during a violent struggle with adrenaline flowing>
>and with a dozen people shouting and screaming at the officers, gets covered at about 150 whilst the fact unarmed officers in an area with a sky high rate of knife crime bravely intercept a suspect armed with a knife and wanted for recall to prison for a violent offence barely>
>registers a 1.5... It also vividly illustrates the asymmetry in how force used (usually for lawful reason) by police officers in the course of arresting violent suspects is treated by the legal system (100) compared to force used by those suspects on police officers (5) as only>
>this week we saw a defendant receive a trivial non-custodial sentence for an ABH (max penalty 5 years) on an officer which left her with a permanently scarred face and significant psychological injuries meaning she is unlikely to work on frontline policing again (depressingly >
>common dire sentencing, and s CLEAR case of undercharging by the CPS, not at all unusual) seen all the time. Of COURSE any suspected use of a dangerous restraint tactic should be thoroughly investigated. Of COURSE any use of such a tactic should be sanctioned appropriately. Of >
>COURSE there will be significant public and media concern about such an incident...BUT, and it is a MASSIVE but, that MUST be proportionate and balanced. And it MUST be met by proper investigation, concern and sanctions for the use of violence against police officers doing >
>there job. At the moment we have anything but balance. The use of force BY police officers is subject to frankly insane and hysterical attention whilst the use of force AGAINST police officers is almost ignored. This is HUGELY damaging to the public interest. It leads to a>
>situation in which attacks on police officers are undeterred (and almost encouraged) by the legal system (and ACTUALLY encouraged by many anti-police police commentators and critics) whilst police officers, in genuine fear for their safety and their careers, are made reluctant>
>to intervene in potentially violent situations and to lawfully use the force needed to keep them (and the public) safe. This is not some theoretical effect we may see in the future. This is happening NOW - I speak to officers regularly who tell me exactly that. And as much>
>police work is discretionary, with no actual downside for the officer choosing not to get involved, why WOULD an officer patrolling unarmed, alone or with one colleague, lawfully suspecting a group of three or four youths of possession of drugs or knives conduct a stop and >
>search on them? If they don't no-one except them will ever know they could have done. And if anyone does find out they can easily justify their inaction by saying their suspicions weren't sufficient to meet the legal test of "reasonable grounds"... And if they do get involved >
>and it does kick off they know there is far less back-up available, and significantly further away, due to a Decade of Destruction of the police service by Theresa May & the Govt. And if any of the youths is detained all they need to do is yell 'Police brutality', 'Get off my >
>neck!', 'I can't breathe!' or, better still if they happen to be able, 'You're only doing this cos I'm black!' and a hostile crowd of aggressive youth and interfering 'woke' liberals will gather, filming everything, demanding answers they have no right to (suspects have privacy>
>to and even physically intervening with no actual knowledge of the situation or dangers (this has been the case for years in some small areas (it happened to me personally in the 90s in Brixton, arresting a violent drug dealer who had a gun in his bag) but it now applies across>
>the UK)... Literally the ONLY thing pushing police officers to getting involved in situations where their action is effectively discretionary is their sense of duty and their morale. And I can assure you that that is at an all time low, the worst I've seen in 40years around>
>policing, after the last decade of insane budget cuts, real-terms pay cuts, theft of their pensions by Govt (for many), zero support from CPS (who regularly undercharge & weakly prosecute violence against police) and the Govt & Courts (who routinely pass laughably lenient >
>sentences on those responsible for serious assaults on police), trial by social media (in which officers are instantly abused and defamed without any evidence by all and sundry), a constant aggressive, anti-police narrative in almost all the media, a lack of support from their>
>bosses (who now seem to default to craven apologies and appeasement of those shouting the loudest, especially if race is an issue, without bothering to establish the actual facts before deciding what to do) and more. I and hearing more and more officers telling me they are>
>simply not getting involved any more unless they actually have to. The critics say this is appalling and they must be made to do their jobs but, however much you agree with this view, the reality is there is simply no way of doing this - much of the policing our society wants >
>(and desperately needs as crime & violence rockets) is entirely discretionary and based on a judgement of 'reasonable grounds' by the officer and there is rarely any way of getting behind a decision not to act. The ONLY way of reversing this trend is to reverse all the negative>
>things I listed. Some of those will take time and cost a lot. But some could be done almost immediately and at little cost. Three immediately spring to mind on which Johnson should channel his hero Churchill and demand 'action this day':
1. Senior officers should drastically >
1. Senior officers should drastically >
>change their internal communications and actions to demonstrate their clear (and genuine) support for their officers, proactively going in to bat for them in the media & with CPS, Courts, Govt, etc (this doesn't mean blind support, no matter what, but if action against officers>
>is clearly justified they need to handle the communication around that FAR more carefully to minimise wider negative impact).
2. @pritipatel must immediately give effect to her constant claims that attacks on police are appalling and will not be tolerated by telling judges &>
2. @pritipatel must immediately give effect to her constant claims that attacks on police are appalling and will not be tolerated by telling judges &>
>magistrates to sentence as robustly as current sentencing law & guidance allows, and give full consideration to the impact on officers, their family and the wider police service. And she should urgently set about changing sentencing law, policy & guidance so there is a minimum>
>sentence for attacks on police, more effective sentencing (with improved input to custodial sentences, community sentences, probation supervision, etc), effective compensation arrangements, etc).
3. Govt must immediately call a summit of media leaders to explain how their>
3. Govt must immediately call a summit of media leaders to explain how their>
