I keep a copy of this pinned up in our training room.
It is as relevant now as it was when it was written.
It is just a shame the meaning has been lost by successive governments and chief officers.
So, Bystander, where did it all go wrong?
It is an interesting historical fact that the introduction of Police Forces was often very controversial. It was for this reason that local “Watch Committees” were set up to supervise policing. These lasted until the Police Act 1964 which was the start of modern Police Authorities with the Chief Constable having total control over Police Operations. Since 1964, the number of Police Forces has been reduced massively and the Association of Chief Constables (ACPO) has developed into a very influential and powerful body. Also, the powers of the Home Secretary have been markedly increased since 1997.
These links are very interesting – particularly the History of the Police written by David S. Wall of Leeds University.
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/...y-paper-
16.html
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/staff...police/
pol1.htm
In relation to Policing in a democratic society, the 9 principles have a timeless wisdom about them and, I believe, that many individual officers still approach their everyday duties in that very decent manner. Anyone who spends any time in our courts will realise the dedication to duty of officers and the risks they oftne have to take on our behalf.
Nevertheless, the “command and control” of the Police has changed beyond all recognition since Robert Peel’s day. To a degree, this has been inevitable given the rise in organised crime, terrorism and the like. There is an obvious need for co-operation and co-ordination between individual Forces and there is also a need for bodies which investigate matters across national boundaries. Unfortunately, in the process, senior Police Officers - (many of whom are very "political animals") - appear to be losing touch with the people they are supposed to be there for. A "back to basics" look at the Police would be worthwhile.
@Peter Hargreaves - All well and good and I'm sure you know 3 or 4 individuals who meet your idealistic fantasy but...."and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty." really does seem to have gone out the window.
@Rod: Whilst agreeing with you, one has to point out that it is not the police which have performed the usurping. Politicians, at the instigation of the tabloids and the mob seem to have done it for them.
Splendid principles, but Georgian ones in 1829.
They were the principles of Richard Mayne, first Met commissioner, adapted from Robert Peel's original.
Alas since Robert Mark, the first 'modern' (i.e. media-savvy) commissioner, they've all made up their own ...
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
br..._principles.htm
Robert Mark merely adapted them and modernised them and made them more succinct.
The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained
Used to be the foreword in the Metropolitan Police's Handbook of Instruction.
Point 9 was why I joined. Try telling it to a detection obssessed government and management.
7 seems to be disappearing as well!!
@nonimouse - That's the old 'Vee fer oonly foolowing ahders' argument used by the Nazis after WWII.
Thing is, it's amazing how much discretion Police officers are given and how badly they may excercise it.
Now I do like this one: "...the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder..."
Quite clearly, the rise in crime and disorder that has taken place over recent decades means that the Police Force is no longer efficient, and therefore requires either abolition or replacement.
What about a 'People's Militia' to patrol our streets instead?
@Rod: Ah, this mythical discretion the police have. I was just thinking about how targets effectively remove discretion and Lo! - this article appears on BBC News. Couldn't have timed it better if I wanted to.
@Sandy: I hope you had a tongue firmly in cheek when you suggested a People's Militia - we're close to it now with Community Support Officers.
@noni - Point taken - but it's the exceptions that hurt.
"targets effectively remove discretion" ...
Only if anybody pays attention to them though. I'm sure the government is able to set whatever targets it likes for anything - but I don't see any law that says anybody has to pay even lip service to them.
It'll take only one brave Chief Constable to ignore the whole lot of them and get on with the day job.
A shame these fine principles are lost on our (your's too) political masters.
I doubt that our political masters, who, after all, live in Brussels these days , are even aware of these principles.
Principle #7 has been comprehensively legislated out of existence.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
