Police should commute in uniform

The really stupid thing is, that as I understand it these days very few police stations have any sort of rest area and it's not uncommon for officers to have nowhere they can go during a "rest" period (assuming they aren't simply rushed off their feet all shift) to have something to eat.
So they can/do end up grabbing some fast food in uniform in public simply because that might be the only chance they get in an 8+ hour shift to get any refreshments.
And then some idiot sees them, takes a picture and the Daily Mail prints it with a caption like "lazy officers sit down to eat whilst 3 year old drowns", because 200 miles away an unsupervised toddler is left by a pond...(you get the idea).
This is actually a criticism of the mind-numbingly stupid Daily Wail and its cretinous readership rather than any comment on whether the impression of greater visibility on the streets by the Police would reduce crime though, isn't it?
 
Thank you. At least someone gets it.

It is an idea that would have worked in the Dixon days and may work in rural areas but it is not compatible with people who live in more urban areas.

How have we let society get to the point where a policeman fears for his own safety in his own home if his neighbours knew his profession?

If you want cops in uniform commuting then they have to be able to defend themselves, others and have the tools to do it. Will the government authorise CS or other sec 5 firearms being carried during the commute ? No.

I wouldn't have a problem with this.
 
The actual report from the Think Tank is 129 pages long. I skim read it last night, the 'wearing uniform on route to work' idea is only one of the suggestions within it.

The report is clearly aimed at giving 'value for money' and increasing visibility of Policing. It also in my opinion seems to be aimed more towards the big Metropolitan Forces such as the Met, West Midlands and Greater Manchester.

Dolph hit on one point of the report, the 13000-14000 Warranted Police Officers who hadn't made an arrest last year. I don't recall the report breaking down these numbers, i.e. how many of those Officers were Sergeants, Inspectors, Chief Inspectors (all the way up to Chief Constable level), since they're just as much a Warranted Officer as a Police Constable.

There are other roles as someone else has mentioned that don't make arrests as such, Surveillance Officers, Field Intelligence Officers etc. The role of their job is to remain covert - they gather the Intelligence and someone else makes that arrest.

Now I'm not making excuses for the seemingly large number of Officers not arresting, but as with anything you have to examine the background.

Then you have the arguement, do you pay a Police Officer working in an Office alongside a Civilian member of staff the same wage, since they're doing the same job. Yes well they may be doing the same task, but the job they do is different.

One will have the right to strike etc and cannot be ordered to stay on duty, one will not have restrictions on their private life such as where they can live or not getting into debt, one will not be expected on or off duty to get involved in dealing with any Criminal incident in front of them (these are just a small proportion of the differences). Can you guess which one is a Police Officer and which is the Civilian Staff member yet?

Now as for wearing Uniform whilst on route to work. Firstly there is no way on Gods earth the Government are going to even consider paying Police Officers in Uniform whilst they are on route to and from work. They haven't got the money - this whole report is not about paying more, but getting value for money and in many cases reducing the cost. One big part of the report mentions how a British Police Officer costs more than their opposite numbers in the US or Australia (quite how they work that one out I don't know).

Other posters have already mentioned the fact that Officers on route to work will not have Radios, CAPTOR / CS Spray, Casco Batons, Handcuffs or Body Armour - Von Smallhausen hit the nail on the head, the incapacitant sprays are considered prohibited weapons - they have to be securely stored.

The same goes for the Police radions, which are pretty sophisticated pieces of kit nowadays. I'm certainly not going to go into the whys on a public forum, but they also have to be accounted for and stored in secure lockers. I know in my own Force people have suggested having these items at home, but it was instantly shot down by Senior Officers.

Most Officers I work with don't need Uniform to get involved - they do and often get injured as a result.

One poster mentioned that forcing Officers to go to work in uniform would weed out the 'cowards' - well let me tell you this sunshine - those Officers have had to go through the same training, the same 2 years probation and work the same shifts as anyone else, they may well be in what you consider cushy jobs now, but as with the recent riots many of them that you consider to be 'cowards' faced people that you may have run a mile from, so don't pull that one.

Some other posters have mentioned the risks of people knowing where Officers live. Now most people are decent law abiding people and would like Police Officers to live by them and would respect them, but there are a lot of people out there who will take a pop at Police Officers and their families. In the years I have been an Officer I've known the following happen to Police Officers that I have worked with:-

1) A female Officer having to have a restraining order placed against a person who persistently followed her home, parked near her house etc.

2) An Officer who had paint thrown over the front door and windows of her house

3) An Officer who had the word "scum" burnt into the bonnet of their car with paint stripper

4) Lost count of the Officers who have had damage caused to their cars whilst parked near to Police Stations

5) An Officer who had every window of his house smashed

6) One Officer who had a Burglary, during the course of which they discovered his Police Uniform and then systematically trashed his house, poured paint all over the walls and carpets, his family photographs and again daubed anti-Police messages in paint.

7) One Officer who was asleep in bed at his house in another Force area only to be woken by the smell of smoke - the whole of the front of his house had been set alight by a person with a grudge.

All of these have taken place on Officers from ONE Police station in a Rural Force. Imagine what would happen in the Met or West Midlands?

It isn't just a case of fearing for our own safety, I can look after myself, but what happens to our wives, husbands, children etc who are at home when we are at work if we are targetted? Thats what we fear.

Whilst the idea is an attractive one for 'Blue sky' think tanks (btw where do they get their money from?) the risks would outweigh the benefits.
 
Last edited:
How have we let society get to the point where a policeman fears for his own safety in his own home if his neighbours knew his profession?

My neighbours know what I do for a living and I get on with them all. The issue is how easy it would be for someone in your policing area to follow you home or have you followed if you commuted or for some random person who is anti police for an opportunist attack on a car or a home ?

Edit - excellent post Andy90.
 
It is quite funny, the CPS have a set of procedures called "Special Measures" in order to protect the identity of witnesses yet some people want off duty Police officers to advertise what they do for a living.
 
A great post

The actual report from the Think Tank is 129 pages long. I skim read it last night, the 'wearing uniform on route to work' idea is only one of the suggestions within it.

The report is clearly aimed at giving 'value for money' and increasing visibility of Policing. It also in my opinion seems to be aimed more towards the big Metropolitan Forces such as the Met, West Midlands and Greater Manchester. ...
<excellent content snipped with regret>
...
Whilst the idea is an attractive one for 'Blue sky' think tanks ... the risks would outweigh the benefits.
An excellent, well thought-out and presented argument :)

I accept that Police Officers are not hugely popular with some people and probably with almost all criminals and many young black people. Like all sections of society, there are some good and some bad. Unfortunately, with necessarily close-knit groups of people - football teams, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. - there is all too often a tendency to cover-up for incompetent or corrupt colleagues on the basis of "There but for the grace of God . . .".

I still suspect that greater visibility of Police Officers "on the street" would help to reduce crime. A somewhat less intimidating and arrogant attitude to the general public would probably go some way to garnering more public support and sympathy. However, I do feel that the general acceptance, often by allegedly respectable people of casual criminal, anti-social and/or generally selfish behaviour doesn't help.

Having said all of that, I have every sympathy for the Police who usually work in a most inhospitable environment and I have a great deal of respect for most of them :)

Again - thanks for a great post.
 
Dolph hit on one point of the report, the 13000-14000 Warranted Police Officers who hadn't made an arrest last year. I don't recall the report breaking down these numbers, i.e. how many of those Officers were Sergeants, Inspectors, Chief Inspectors (all the way up to Chief Constable level), since they're just as much a Warranted Officer as a Police Constable.

There are other roles as someone else has mentioned that don't make arrests as such, Surveillance Officers, Field Intelligence Officers etc. The role of their job is to remain covert - they gather the Intelligence and someone else makes that arrest.

Now I'm not making excuses for the seemingly large number of Officers not arresting, but as with anything you have to examine the background.

(Emphasis mine)

Exactly! This is the usual problem with this kind of "efficiency" report. Shallow nonsense that hasn't even bothered to try and find out why things are they way they are but has, instead, snagged onto a trite fact, interpreted it in their own way and then drawn a whole load of conclusions based on nothing more solid than their own assumptions.
 
From friends in London, I gather that the fare-dodging Police are still allowed through the barriers on London Underground on production of their identification - it would be a nice idea if this were ONLY to apply if they were in uniform :)

What issue do you take with a fully agreed deal between the Metropolitan police and tube and train companies ?

It was brought in as a perk to attract more recruits and transferees into London.
 
Then you have the arguement, do you pay a Police Officer working in an Office alongside a Civilian member of staff the same wage, since they're doing the same job. Yes well they may be doing the same task, but the job they do is different.

One will have the right to strike etc and cannot be ordered to stay on duty, one will not have restrictions on their private life such as where they can live or not getting into debt, one will not be expected on or off duty to get involved in dealing with any Criminal incident in front of them (these are just a small proportion of the differences). Can you guess which one is a Police Officer and which is the Civilian Staff member yet?

I'm not going to comment on the rest of a well thought out post, but this part looks a bit back to front to me.

The issue is why are police officers being employed in roles where they are not required, not whether they get the same pay and benefits, that's a consequence, not the cause.

If you're employed in a role that a civilian could do (and there are plenty, otherwise the huge variations between the police forces wouldn't exist), then you should not be considered a warranted officer. That status should be a result of the job role, not of prior history, nor should it dictate the pay you receive, again, that should be the result of the job role.

It is also the reason why, if we look at the police force through independent eyes and stop trying to play politics with it, there is massive scope for reform, and reduction in both costs and officer numbers, without having any impact on front line policing.
 
(Emphasis mine)

Exactly! This is the usual problem with this kind of "efficiency" report. Shallow nonsense that hasn't even bothered to try and find out why things are they way they are but has, instead, snagged onto a trite fact, interpreted it in their own way and then drawn a whole load of conclusions based on nothing more solid than their own assumptions.

And comparisons with other police forces ;)

If it was all necessary, then there wouldn't be huge variations between police forces in how they use warranted officers, and what proportion of their staff they make up... and yet there is. So is looking at what other forces do (and factoring in their results) not an acceptable way to consider improvements? Is there any such thing as acceptable reform or change in the wacky world of the loony left?
 
What issue do you take with a fully agreed deal between the Metropolitan police and tube and train companies ?

It was brought in as a perk to attract more recruits and transferees into London.

My local Morrisons do a full breakfast for a £1 for on duty bobbies, everyone is a winner, a nice regular presence from the police and a cheap breakfast!
 
Dolph, apart from the mountains of reports you obviously read, what experience of anything do you have?

As others have noted, you seem to have the answer to every problem the nation faces.
 
Dolph, in a nutshell it is easy for police forces to cut police staff posts to save money and backfill those posts, or at least some of them, with warranted officers.

My force has done that but not without reform of frontline, namely following a Met model where officers arrest, quick pre-cis, handover to a PHT and back out.
 
Back
Top Bottom