The hidden policing message: are PCSOs for the high jump?
Posted on September 9, 2010Sir Dennis O’Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has been getting a lot of media attention today for his broadside against the failings of modern policing. The main focus has been on his call for the police to “reclaim the streets” from yobs and to take low-level continuous offending more seriously.
It turns out – surprise, surprise – that we need police on the streets arresting criminals, backed up by courts that actually hand out tough punishments. That’s a view you could hear in any pub in the land, but is all too rarely espoused by anyone with any power.
What everyone seems to have missed so far, though, is his thinly veiled attack on PCSOs.
In his interview on the Today Programme this morning he emphasised a key theme – that to beat crime and take back the streets “it’s not just about [police] presence, it’s the presence of control”.
In the world of policing theory and policy, this is a direct attack on the thinking that lay behind the creation of PCSOs. Full police officers – the argument went – with a warrant card, training and full pension, are too expensive. Supposedly the job could be done just as well by creating a job that didn’t hold the same powers or cost as much but would be a visible presence. In short, the idea behind PCSOs was explicitly that presence alone was the most important thing.
It’s pretty clear now that that was a mistake. It is the warrant card in the officer’s pocket that actually arrests criminals, not the dayglo jacket – and PCSOs had the latter but not the former. If Sir Dennis’s thinking is spreading among senior police officers, the days of the PCSO could be numbered.
Tags: Crime, Law and order, Media, PCSOs, policing, Politics, public spending, Sir Dennis O'Connor, Today Programme
Yes Mark, but what you have to watch out for is that instead of getting rid of the PCSO’s they just extend their powers. Yes they would need training and maybe even an exam or passing out parade.
One of the most important checks on Police powers is that all police officers have to swear an oath to uphold the law. They are in fact officers of the law and not officers of the state. As such they cannot (or should not) take an unlawful order. The same is not true of a PCSO who has sworn no such oath and is an officer of the state. They must do as their employer says not what the law says.
When you think about it, in this day and age it is incredible that the Police have such autonomy in how the law is upheld especially considering that they work in the public sector. No doubt the planners hate it.
To me it is inconcievable that when PCSOs were brought in the government of the time (or more likely the civil service) did not consider whether they should also make such an oath, even if it was a lesser oath to reflect their lesser duties. Clearly an oath like this limits what a PCSO can do and looking forward I don’t think a civil service planner would want this kind of restriction (they are so troublesome when trying to get things done). Not for malicious reasons but because they believe in the benevolence of the state.
24.09.2010 09:00
Good post. None of this need have happened. When it became apparent that Police Officers were in danger of becoming swamped with the paperwork, it would have made far more sense to employ a few administrators to do their typing while keeping the Police out on the streets. But no, the lure of the comfy chair, office hours and their own liitle empire complete with flowchart and desk put paid to that.
I worked in retail for many years. Superdrug was one of the retailing success stories of the 70s and 80s. The office in the shop was as spartan as could be. There was no chair. Why? Because the store manager was required to be on the shop floor at all times.
At head office there was one office desk reserved for area managers. They had to make an appointment to use it. Why? because they were required to be out on the road, in the shops. If it could wortk in the private sector, why not in the public?
24.09.2010 09:35
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Wallace and Akvavitix, JuliaM. JuliaM said: “@wallaceme: Crash Bang Wallace: Are PCSOs to be axed? The Chief Inspector of Policing's hidden message http://bit.ly/9vjinx” > Oh I hope! [...]
24.09.2010 16:32
Well done for getting to the point, PCSO’s have been a huge waste of money.
The really disappointing thing for me is how ACPO including the HMIC have let us all down with the lies and spin of the last 15 years, they have a lot to answer for. I believe the restucturing that is going to take place in the police service is a real opportunity to focus on what is important and not the political correct agenda that we have been forced to pursue.
You need to keep a watch though on how this is implemented as senior officers are not listening to the front line and are still wasting huge amounts of money and letting the public down. The truth of the matter is they do not care about people, whether they by the public or their own staff. ACPO need to be made personally responsible for their decisoins and held to account if they get it wrong. At the moment they just move on to anothe Force, leaving the chaos and damage behind them.
25.09.2010 15:31