This is an open letter to Ian Hanson of the Greater Manchester Police Federation (who have the motto: "We're here to assist in the welfare and efficiency[!!!] of the force")
Dear Ian Hanson
You appeared on BBC News 24 representing Greater Manchester Police Federation. I want to give you feedback on that interview, because I was woefully underwhelmed by it.
- Do the public support the police handling of this week's riots? Yes, I believe they do. I do.
- Does the statement from the police officer appearing before you ring true that police organised themselves as time went on rather than needing direction from politicians? Yes, probably it does.
But you said "We've stripped out police forces and police stations across the country to do this and we can't function like this". You said "We want to see increases after what we've seen this week".
You seem to think we should keep thousands of police officers paid and in a cupboard for once in a decade or two when we have large scale public order issues. Are you living on another planet to the rest of us? It is obvious that police will be redeployed - "stripped out" from other tasks, if you like - in such a time. Every organisation will do that to deal with major incidents. It could be a natural disaster - organisations will temporarily re-deploy much of its staff in recovering. It could be a hospital A&E which will send minor injuries home because a Major Incident happens. We're talking about one week's civil unrest since the 1980s and you want an increase in policing as a result? If you think that, I really think you're not up to the job to which you've been tasked; and what is more,
you treat the public as imbeciles, which makes us very angry and unsympathetic.
You asked what is the "front line" and said that nobody had ever told you about it. So let me tell you about the front line now. The "front line" are people who are actively and efficiently fighting crime: finding and arresting criminals, ensuring public safety. If they are doing that job, they are in the front line.
But it's not what I see. I have been stopped by the police four times over a number of years for going twice round a roundabout 300m from my house, or going once round the roundabout and returning up the same road: I have been repeatedly hassled by the police for because I either changed my mind or returned home for something I'd forgotten. They, my friend, are uniformed police officers who are
not on the front line. Police funding needs to be cut, cut, cut again and cut some more until there are no more police officers who are deployed to waste their time, our time and our money.
The other day we were told that the police were not making arrests because every arrest took 3 police officers off the front line. Do you think the public understand this? You have a police van, you make the arrests at scene and put those arrested in the back of a van. When the van is full, it is taken back to the police station by one officer where a number of custody officers assist in processing the suspects. Then the van returns with one officer for the next batch. It isn't rocket science. The remaining officers are not in the front line. If they are removed from their station by bureaucracy, this is what you need to bring to the attention of the public and the politicians: "We are losing officers from front line duties because regulations require us to do xxx and we need a change in the regulations".
We had some trouble a while ago with youngsters throwing stones at our house, and at a neighbour's greenhouse. The next day, two police officers came round to talk with us about it. Why two? Is it some health & safety legislation that officers have to go round in twos in a sleepy countryside town? Did they need a witness? A while ago, one police officer would have attended on a bike. It seems to me that one police officer was in the front line, the other was surplus to requirements. But neither police officer actually saw their duty as solving the crime. They were just recorders. Two officers came round again when we complained that nothing had been done, and they went away again after telling us that nothing could be done. But our neighbour went knocking on the doors of houses bordering our properties. It took him 10 minutes to establish who was to blame. He told the police, and two officers came round to see him; two officers went to the offender's house and talked to him. It was sorted out. One front line officer could have dealt with this incident within an hour. Instead it took multiple attendances by twice as many officers as necessary, and still wouldn't have been resolved but for 10 minutes intervention taken by our neighbour.
I met an off-duty police officer from my local force a few weeks ago, whom I've known since childhood; and I asked about the cuts. After they told me they were being reduced to part-time, I asked "Are cuts being made through greater efficiency and streamlining bureaucracy, or just shared out around departments?". I was told there were no efforts to save money in this way... the cuts were simply being made according to which areas would cause least controversy.
In this e-mail, I've just shown you how you can:
- Reduce officers who are wasting their time and that of others
- Save 50% in duplicate officers unnecessarily deployed in many circumstances
- Arrest people who are smashing and looting without losing 2 or 3 officers from the scene for each arrest.
I could continue much longer, just from my own tiny experience, and we haven't even started to consider what administrative jobs are a complete waste of time. And I've also told you what is the front line, so if I ever again hear you say nobody has ever told you what it is, you will be lying.
We need officers like *you* to stop carping about lost staff and start getting SERIOUS about finding ways to economise. Get Serious about it!!!!! Most of us aren't as stupid as you seem to think. Please: either do your job or leave and get another one better suited to your skills.
Kind regards
- andi ye
