ACPO

A brief visit to the website of The Association of Chief Police Officers showed that it had links to a couple of documents which throw light on areas of malpractice by my local police, but also raised questions in my mind about the nature and role of this organization.

On its Home Page the Association makes the following bold claim: "ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland." If that is the case, then presumably we already live in a police state, and are not just moving slowly towards it through limitations on individual liberty.

The Association does mention on the same page, "the tripartite framework of policing which brings together the local Chief Constable, the local Police Authority and the Home Secretary", but the lack of any sense of hierarchy here is a regrettable omission.

We are also told that "The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is not a staff association", but that it has "the status of a private company". The implications of those statements I have yet to work out.

The documents which I may want to examine for the light they throw on malpractice by my local police are Guidelines on the Use of Handcuffs and Computer based evidence; good practice guide.

Occasionally I might use this page to record the aspirations of this private company's members, an idea suggested by the publication in The Independent online on 15 August 2006 of a story by Kim Pilling, "Police 'seek instant justice powers' ".

The item tells us, 'Surrey's Assistant Chief Constable Mark Rowley has reportedly drawn up plans that he said could prove the modern equivalent of the "mythical clip around the ear from the local bobby".'

So ACC Rowley is looking for a twenty-first century equivalent to a criminal assault by the police which could damage someone's hearing for life.

A couple of examples will illustrate the sort of thing that ACC Rowley has in mind:

"Neighbourhood constables could slap three-month bans on gang members mixing with each other in public or meeting at a particular location."

"Mr Rowley also targets motorists who repeatedly drive in an unregistered car, with no insurance, driving licence or MOT. They would face immediate seizure of the car, which could be crushed, and receive an interim driving ban before a court date."

My own experience of Sussex Police is that some police officers already have too much power for someone of their limited intelligence, inadequate education and training, and dubious moral character. Dishonesty in police officers is ignored or covered up by their colleagues. A record of criminality is not necessarily a bar to being recruited into police service. On the Sussex Police website, the list of crimes which would disqualify an applicant is laughable: "murder, manslaughter, death by reckless driving, rape, kidnapping, firearms offences, gross indecency, hostage taking, hi-jacking, or torture." If you haven't been caught out doing anything on the list, you might be OK, providing you haven't more than three endorseable traffic convictions.

Mr Rowley imagines that the imposition of immediate 'justice' by the police would be more efficient than the "slow and inaccessible" criminal justice system. Judging by my own case, the police and the IPCC would be submerged beneath avalanches of complaints from members of the public suffering from partiality, stupidity, ignorance, or malpractice on the part of police officers.