Category Archives: Criminal Justice System

Policing the Police

Having detached myself from active involvement in politics when Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, I felt a pang of nostalgia when my postal ballot arrived this morning for the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner election on 5 May. This will be the first election for many years which I will not be involved in: as a candidate, agent, canvasser, organiser, or leafleter. Incidentally, I haven’t been asked to leaflet or canvass so it’s possible there is no Labour campaign activity here anyway.

ballot 2016

Who to vote for?

I am a Labour Party member and I have been for 20+ years. I have always voted Labour because I believe in Labour values. I oppose Jeremy Corbyn and the half-baked incoherent ideology he has become the figurehead for but I don’t oppose him enough to resign from the party or not vote Labour.

The Labour candidate, Howard Kaye, is an enthusiastic Corbyn supporter and has criticised me on Facebook for not backing him as our leader (whatever Corbyn is, he definitely isn’t a leader!). The party is in a dire state and may not even exist by the 2020 PCC election. Corbyn is the worst leader of any major British political party in history and if he became Prime Minister he would be the worst one ever and a real danger to the country. Despite this, I will still be voting Labour with my first preference.

Who else to vote for?

This election is run under the supplementary vote system where voters express a second preference which is used if no candidate exceeds 50% of first preferences. Labour won’t win in Surrey so my second preference could actually make a difference. There are six other candidates to choose from:

David Munro (Conservative) – I don’t vote Tory. I’m not that sort of person. Ruled out.

Paul Kennedy (Lib Dems) – I think I remember this guy because he tweeted me presistently during the 2015 general election campaign telling me to drop out or stop campaigning to help my hapless Lib Dem opponent compete against the Tory incumbent. He obviously doesn’t care for democracy much. Juvenile. Ruled out.

Julia Searle (Ukip) – Ukip are oafs. They peddle racism and appeal to the worst in people. Ruled out.

Kevin Hurley (Zero Tolerance Policing ex Chief Party) – Hurley is the incumbent PCC and I know him better than all the other candidates. It is only because I know that there is a difference between his rhetoric and reality that I have a grudging respect for him. It was quite an achievement for him to defeat the Tories in Surrey in 2012. Personally, I would prefer a Zero Intolerance candidate but I realise Zero Tolerance was 99% bluster anyway. His rhetoric motivated voters and may have helped police morale, at least until his public spat with the excellent former chief constable Lynne Owens.

However, cutting through the rhetoric, neighbourhood policing has been cut and council tax has risen by the maximum amount allowed each year. Labour invested heavily in neighbourhood policing and it was hugely successful in cutting crime and the fear of crime. Residents in my village are noticing the cuts and feeling less safe. Council tax is a regressive tax – the poorest feel the greatest burden when this tax is raised. This is not a record of success.

Jamie Goldrick (Independent) – The problem with non-party candidates is they haven’t gone through a selection process to weed out eccentrics, fantastists and Nazis. Goldrick and the other ‘independent’, Camille Juliff, seem to be normal people from reading the GetSurrey pieces on them but why are they standing? Goldrick has 15 followers on Twitter. He is a drug expert but his website doesn’t make clear whether he favours more permissive policing of drugs. Maybe he would be a steady hand on the tiller but I don’t have the information to tell.

Camille Juliff (Independent) – Juliff is another insider, a former Surrey Police civilian employee. She has 70 Twitter followers so is barely making any more effort than Goldrick. It has been suggested that they are standing to confuse the electorate and distract from Hurley. I doubt this but how am I supposed to know how they would do the job of PCC? The content of Juliff’s website is better than Goldrick’s but they could both be much better. I want to believe that Juliff would be a competent and ethical PCC but again I don’t have much evidence to go on. I don’t think there have been any hustings, unlike in 2012 when I attended many and got to question the candidates face to face.

Is that it?

As a voter, I feel dissatisfied by this election.


Who is keeping Surrey safe tonight?

Yesterday evening I had the opportunity to spend time with armed Surrey Police officers and then sit in on the county’s Incident Handling Centre. I watched how police deal with incidents across Surrey which were life-changing to the people involved. I have written many times before about policing and my impressions from observing their training sessions. Viewing in real time how police keep Surrey safe is something which everyone who aspires to be an MP should do. It was eye-opening for me.

Armed police in Surrey carry out the counter terrorism function here so security is tight and I will respect their request not to identify operational officers and tactics.


I visited the operational armed policing base in Guildford and had the opportunity to speak to officers, learn about tactics and handle the weapons and equipment armed officers use. An ARV is an Armed Response Vehicle which carries the specialist officers on patrol continuously. The question of whether ARVs should be sent to routine police jobs was what started my investigation.

In the last few days, US police have been in the news for shooting an unarmed black teenager and a child with a toy gun. The militarisation of police in the USA has trampled civil rights and leaves many people living in an effective police state. This hasn’t happened here and from what I have seen, there are no signs of it in Surrey yet.

Can you guess how many police were on duty across Surrey last night? And how many of those are armed? I won’t reveal the exact numbers but it’s fewer than you think. There are 1.2 million residents in Surrey and a very small number of police cover the whole area.

Being a police officer is not an easy job. I can vouch that wearing body armour and a helmet is uncomfortable and the weapons and ammunition feel heavy after a while too. They have to go anywhere, there can be no no-go areas for police. Police pay and pensions have been squeezed and they have to work longer before they retire. The sergeant who I accompanied yesterday might have been a teacher and had an outlook on life typical of many public servants: a desire to give something back to society and protect the vulnerable.

Like all public servants, police deserve to be properly led and fairly rewarded.

It is important that Surrey Police and other forces are funded appropriately. However, I hope that Council Tax is not raised again to compensate for central government cuts. Council Tax is a regressive tax and working people are already squeezed by the cost of living crisis in Guildford.

Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were supposed to bear down on inefficiencies, not simply raise tax by the maximum allowed and spend it all. Abolishing PCCs would save millions which could be spent on policing.

Yesterday, I saw examples of firearms which have been seized or handed in by the public. I would like to see fewer firearms in circulation in Surrey, including legally held ones. Recently, legally held guns have been used to murder people in this county so I would like police to be able to charge the full cost of issuing shotgun certificates, for example.

Following police officers at their work has helped me appreciate the pressures they are under. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said that police should tackle crime, and that’s all. However, I witnessed police being called on in Surrey to save people who were in pain emotionally and needed help which only police could provide in time. Contrast that with the news today about the former Conservative Chief Whip verbally abusing the armed police officer who was protecting him.

Thank you to Surrey Police, especially the sergeant who escorted me and the inspector in charge of the IHC, for being so open and allowing me to witness your work. I feel reassured and impressed by the people who are quietly keeping us all safe in Surrey tonight.

A View to a Kill: Observing Police Firearms Training

Today I was lucky enough to be the guest of Surrey Police and Sussex Police at their joint firearms training establishment in East Sussex to observe recurrent training of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs). Regular readers will know that I often write about criminal justice issues and I really try to become informed on complicated matters where the public perception might not tell the whole story. Last year I observed police Taser training which was an eye-opening experience.

“We do not need guns and bombs to bring peace, we need love and compassion.”- Mother Teresa

I was invited to today’s training during a Twitter-storm-in-a-teacup when I commented about incidences of armed police bringing their guns to routine callouts. When people ask what the point of social media, like twitter, is I would use this as an example. Deputy Chief Constable Simon Chesterman saw my tweet and contacted me to offer the opportunity to find out how British armed police operate. Simon is the ACPO lead for armed policing. He contacted Surrey’s Chief Constable, Lynne Owens, who asked me what I would like to see and authorised it. Then Assistant Chief Constable Steve Barry who is in charge of specialist operations for Surrey and Sussex got in touch followed by Superintendent Sharon Bush.

If you haven’t already noticed, senior police officers all have Twitter accounts! They are clearly not for reporting crimes on. They are for communicating with the public (well, tweeters anyway). This transparency is very interesting. Although I am now a parliamentary candidate, when I observed the Taser training I was just a typical blogger. Everyone I met on these two days was keen to explain their jobs and answer my questions. Also, much of what I discovered was contrary to public perception. Clearly the police is making an effort to show what they do and why and clearly this is needed because public debate about some policing issues is not informed enough yet.

Observant readers will have noticed that I have spoken to 4 senior officers by this stage. There were two more, Inspectors, in the chain before today’s visit. I can’t really comment on whether this chain is too long. If the police was set up to facilitate politicians visiting their facilities then it is rather inefficient. Happily, that is not their raison d’être so I can understand why it took a few phone calls and emails. I won’t name the other officers because they don’t have as high a public profile and I haven’t asked them if it would be OK. However, everyone was very helpful and cooperative, especially the Inspector who showed me round today. He answered my questions and talked through the events we were watching making sure I noticed the important points.

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”- Dalai Lama XIV

Firearms training centre

Firearms training centre

At the training base, there is a mock town road with a bus stop, lots of seized cars for practising with and an indoor mock-up of lots of rooms in a maze-like building where gunmen and their victims could be concealed.

AFOs have at least 15 recurrent training days per year, with additional days required for various specialisations. Some trainees I spoke to suggested up to 30 days per year spent training. This seems like a lot and I think the public would be reassured because of the responsibility an armed officer has. They do not shoot to incapacitate, they shoot to kill. If a target is shot and no longer a threat then they carry out medical treatment to try to undo the effect of their own shots. I heard about how the armed police at a shooting are often able to administer immediate treatment for gunshot wounds more effectively than paramedics.

There is no doubt that spending your working day preparing potentially to take another person’s life is a very serious occupation. I didn’t hear anyone take this lightly. The mood in between the training sessions seemed calm but the simulated events were anything but that. There are over 100 AFOs in Surrey and Sussex combined but when days off, etc are taken into account the number is not particularly high in my opinion. Gatwick Airport police are all armed, of course.

The training day had two groups of trainees with about 12 in each. Everyone there, trainees, instructors and observers, was a white man except one woman trainee and one woman officer who was observing, she is considering applying to join the firearms section. More diversity would obviously be an advantage.

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”- Mao Zedong

The Weapons

The handgun that all AFOs carry at all times is the Glock 17. In the training environment they use a blue version to ensure they don’t accidentally take out the wrong weapon from the armoury.

Glock 17 (blue for training), Taser (red) and carbine

Glock 17 (blue for training), Taser (red) and carbine

They also use carbines which fire 5.56mm rounds which penetrate car windows, doors and people accurately at up to 300m and less precisely at 500m. AFOs also carry Tasers and another nonlethal option is the baton launcher which fires a kind of rubber bullet. This was described as like being hit by a baton: sore but less effective against drugged or drunk assailants. They also have stun grenades for clearing buildings.

My concern is about how the public are protected. Firstly, we need to be protected from armed criminals. Secondly, we need to have confidence that the police won’t kill or injure anyone unnecessarily, even criminals.

The Tactics

Given all the dangers and pressures of armed policing, it is vital that AFOs work well as a team. Since team members have to be interchangeable standard tactics are used for arresting people in cars, “vehicle stops” and searching buildings, “single system search”. These tactics are common across the UK so officers in different forces can theoretically quickly work alongside each other. I work for a very large airline and we operate the same way. I could fly with any of the 500+ copilots on my fleet and we would be able to work as a team straight away dealing with emergencies because we all follow standard procedures.

Enforced vehicle stop

Enforced vehicle stop

We saw two types of vehicle stop: compliant and enforced. There are two threat levels: low and high. They were very different experiences. The low threat compliant stop involved a lot of shouting and would be a frightening experience for an innocent driver. The police handguns and carbines were drawn and clearly threatening to the motorist who was stopped (a police officer role playing) but the safety catches were still on and the carbines were kept pointing down or away from the target. The motorist ended up being handcuffed on their knees, which would be traumatic but not fatal.

The high threat enforced stop started with a car crash, literally. It was a low speed bump but created some broken glass and a bent BMW door. The safety catches were off and the tension levels kicked up a notch. The car passenger was handcuffed face down on the wet ground in front of me. No one was injured during the training exercise but it must be a risk and in real life I expect there would be injuries even without any bullets being fired. However, nobody was shot and this reflects how things are usually done in Surrey and Sussex. The Inspector escorting me told me he has conducted these “stops” in real life but Surrey Police as a whole has only fired live rounds on two occasions in the last 10 years, causing one fatality.

The assessment of the threat level is very important too. As an airline captain I am required to react to bomb threats based on the assessment too and my actions would be very different for different threats so it is vital the assessment is accurate. (I’ve never received a bomb threat to my aircraft in 15 years, fingers crossed!).

Hostage to be rescued, viewed from gantry

Hostage to be rescued, viewed from gantry

The “single system search” is a systematic way of clearing and searching a building. It can be scaled up or down depending on how many AFOs are available. There are two types of search: emergency and deliberate. An emergency search will be when time is limited and there is a shooter or a victim which needs to be found and dealt with quickly. The training mock-up has a gantry overhead where we could observe how the teams moved from room to room. I had to wear safety goggles and ear plugs but the weapons only fired paint pellets. Like the vehicle stops, this involved a lot of shouting. I think the communication between the AFOs was more standardised here because it is clearly critical they know what their colleagues are doing. The risk of “blue on blue” is very high. The bullets can pass through doors and people so AFOs have to ensure they don’t hit each other.

The Threat

There was plenty of time today to discuss with officers what they see as the threat. This was similar to the analysis by trainees at the Taser training I observed. EMDs, Emotionally or Mentally Distressed people, cause the vast majority of their callouts, 21 out of 23 was cited. If people are not thinking rationally it must be very difficult to stop them harming others without using force. Some of them may hope to commit “suicide by cop”. I really feel for police officers who have to deal with violent irrational people, I know I couldn’t do that part of their job. Dealing with armed bank robbers is far easier to understand. The vehicle stops simulated this and reminded me of The Professionals. In reality, police work of this kind is messy and decisions are difficult to take.

Some vehicle stops in real life are totally innocent people. A “partial index” was mentioned where part of a car registration was recorded at a crime. When a car was stopped by armed police looking for the criminals it turned out to be a nun!

I think the threat in Surrey is different to the threat in London. Also, I feel Surrey Police train hard and fight easy. They don’t appear to be as trigger-happy as the Met. In the whole of Surrey there are only 2 ARVs, Armed Response Vehicles, on constant patrol. I suggested they are like Trident submarines, constantly at sea, providing a defence. For over a million residents, this does not seem like militarisation.

Surrey Police’s armed officers provide the counter terrorism function for our county too. This is why there are no officers in my photos and I haven’t named anyone operational. The terrorism threat against British police officers was recently raised and I respect the risk these officers take by being possible targets. I haven’t described in detail the tactics because it is not totally relevant and I don’t want to help anyone counter them.

Speaking to Yvette Cooper at Labour conference

Speaking to Yvette Cooper at Labour conference

It was pointed out that there are many legally-held firearms and shotguns in Surrey. As someone who has been threatened by one, over the phone, I appreciate that threat. As an aside, I was glad to hear from Yvette Cooper, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, at the annual conference that, under Labour, Surrey Police will be able to charge applicants for shotgun certificates the full cost of providing them. Prices have been frozen for so long it costs the force a huge amount every year processing shotgun permits. That money should go on policing.

Guns in Public

This debate started with people objecting to armed officers bringing guns to routine calls. This happens sometimes in Surrey but not in Sussex. We discussed how the public react. It was suggested that, if noticed, it could be a conversation piece for young men (the subject of role models and inspiration for young men must be addressed in future). I am concerned about inherent implicit threats of violence. However, if a domestic abuse incident is in progress and the “box is empty” apart from the ARV then it makes sense for them to deploy to it.

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one”- Vladimir Lenin

Avoid, Trap, Mitigate

This is our mantra when flying airliners. Sending armed officers to routine calls because no one else is available is “mitigating”. It is an expensive and less effective way of working. I need to understand why we cannot work at the “avoid” level. We need to work at this level for the mentally distressed people who cause the majority of armed police callouts too. They should be receiving help earlier. Ending up in a police cell or being shot by police is the outcome which must be avoided.

It was fascinating to watch armed police training today. In particular I enjoyed discussing these issues with trainees and instructors, they clearly think deeply about the implications of how they carry out their jobs. I am now coming to expect this from police I meet in person. My two objectives are to understand the effect on public safety of a) stopping dangerous people and b) use of violent police action beyond that absolutely necessary.

I am very grateful to Surrey Police and in particular the officers who chatted to me today. I have learned a lot today but my research is not yet complete.

“Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.”- Ayn Rand

Twitter Squad! If you dare to question British police, expect a visit.

Today it emerged that armed police officers in the UK have been bringing their guns along to routine police work causing members of the public to feel threatened. I tweeted today’s BBC story here:

Of course, this tweet is not a criticism of any individual officer, or even police officers in general. It is a criticism of the system which has allowed creeping militarisation of the police in this country. Despite that, I received a barrage of abuse from police tweeters. There were some reasoned comments amongst them but it was mostly abuse, including swearing intended to intimidate or distress me. From police officers.

I have had online abuse from police officers before, of course. Members of Twitter Squad are never brave enough to do it face-to-face. I have been called a “police hater” because I disagreed with deploying water cannon on the UK mainland. Apart from members of Twitter Squad, everyone above the age of 8 knows that just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they hate you.

Twitter Squad represents a small number of police officers, the rest of whom must be deeply embarrassed by their cretinous behaviour. The specimen in this article, Peter Kirkham, called me the same word he called Theresa May. This is a pattern of behaviour one should never see from a police officer. I think Twitter Squad members, presumably British police officers, committed about 4 communications offences against me today. I have deleted the swear words in a couple more:

Pleb Evans

Along with the swearing, I was accused of “not having a clue” and being an “idiot”, “stupid” and “a toff”!

Twitter Squad is now a threat to anyone who speaks out about policing. They aim for a more authoritarian, oppressive police and should be called out by politicians for their disgraceful cowardly behaviour (like Nick Herbert did in the link above). I’m from Glasgow and I know as many swear words as these brave tweeters in blue but I don’t use them to abuse anyone who disagrees with me. The time has come for chief police officers to act to permit members of the public to discuss policing without having the dogs of Twitter Squad set on them. If they don’t act, politicians should.

Most adults realise that just because I am standing for Parliament does not mean they have permission to abuse me. It is surprising that such a large number of police officers can’t grasp that. I think there is a culture of exceptionalism in British policing. For too long a minority of police officers have believed they are above the law. We have seen outrageous cover-ups of police behaviour and even some sort of police black ops editing of Wikipedia.

Twitter Squad is a disgrace to british policing. They are touchy, abusive louts who only want the police to be more violent and run for their benefit. If the police are the public and the public are the police, we all need to stand up to these thugs.


Levels of Trust and Surrey Police


Today I met with Deputy Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave to discuss the recent disciplinary case involving Surrey Police’s Head of Finance, Paul Bundy. Mr Bundy had been dismissed for gross misconduct on 26 November 2013 then reinstated after an appeal on 19 December. Not much more than that was currently in the public domain except that the misconduct consisted of a failure to declare a personal interest and mishandling internal information.

DCC Nick Ephgrave and Richard Wilson

DCC Nick Ephgrave and Richard Wilson

Why was I there?

I have been on record calling for Surrey Police to reveal more details of the case. There were two main reasons I met with DCC Ephgrave this morning.

Firstly, on behalf of the people, the taxpayers, of Surrey. They deserve to know if their public money is being lost. For example, Surrey Police are selling some former police station buildings and no indication had been given whether assets had been sold inappropriately. The public is rightly concerned about protection of their own data. People will have wondered if the data that had been “mishandled” was their personal information. After today’s meeting I can reveal that neither of these events have occurred in this case. The public need to trust Surrey Police to inform them if their interests have been harmed and how. Obviously, Surrey Police was harmed by the misconduct, or there would have been no disciplinary hearing, so in that sense the public interest was harmed.

Secondly, I was there on behalf of the rank and file police officers in Surrey. They have been putting their lives at risk during the recent floods, as they often do to protect us all. They deserve to know that they can trust their leadership team.

Just the facts

DCC Ephgrave was very open and helpful about the case and started by explaining the facts of the case and the procedure. I took some notes to ensure I got it right:

The misconduct took place over several months before the disciplinary hearing on 26 Nov. This was chaired by Commander Adrian Hanstock of the Metropolitan Police. Paul Bundy, whom DCC Ephgrave described as “a member of the chief officer team”, was represented by a lawyer, as is his right.

The hearing found

  1. on the balance of probabilities that the misconduct took place
  2. that it was “gross misconduct” and 
  3. the “sanction” ie punishment should be dismissal

Mr Bundy had 5 working days to appeal, which he did. The appeal hearing took place on 19 Dec and was chaired by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Fiona Taylor also of the Met. It is a requirement for appeals to be chaired by an officer senior to the one who chaired the original hearing. It is not a requirement for it to be chaired by an officer from a different force to the first one, although Cmdr Hanstock does not report to DAC Taylor in the Met.

The appeal hearing found that the original hearing was correct on points 1 & 2 above but overturned point 3. It found that a more appropriate sanction was a final written warning. Mr Bundy was reinstated with immediate effect. Each hearing took two days and, along with the investigation, cost the Force an unspecified large amount of money!
It was expected that he would receive his salary for the time he had been wrongly dismissed. It was unclear how much extra was paid to the PCC’s finance manager during the period where he was standing in as finance head. It was unclear to what extent the Force’s financial management had been impaired during this period.
Paul Bundy had a previously unblemished employment record. The “interest” which he had failed to declare has now been declared properly. He has not admitted the mishandling of internal information charge but he did not appeal against the hearing’s finding that he did commit this.

…And now for the verdict

Although I have not seen all the confidential documents relating to the case, I am satisfied that DCC Ephgrave, in his capacity as the chief officer responsible for professional standards, has treated this with the appropriate seriousness. I don’t intend to speculate about why the initial sanction of dismissal was overturned on appeal. It would have been better for Surrey Police if the original hearing had come to a decision which was not overturned but that can only be said with hindsight.
I believe that Surrey Police were correct to release the fact that Mr Bundy had been dismissed after the original hearing. However, they should have been more specific about the nature of the misconduct. I now know what the misconduct consisted of, broadly, and although it is very serious, if Surrey Police had been more forthcoming initially it would have prevented some of the wilder speculation. I invite them to be publicly more specific now.
Rank and file police have a difficult job, sometimes impossibly difficult. They have a right to expect the highest standards from their leadership team. In this case they were let down by one member of it. This sometimes happens in big organisations. The best way to minimise the damage to trust in the Force’s leadership is to be as transparent as possible. Personally, I am not interested in discovering details of anyone’s private life but I think some more information should be in the public domain about this case.

This has been a difficult issue for Surrey Police and they have learned lessons from it.

The Police are the Police and the Public are Kept in the Dark

Robert Peel (1788-1850) was the founder of the police force in this country. He set the principles which still govern policing today and aim to ensure it is ethical and works in the interests of the people. Here is one of his most famous quotations:

“The police are the public and the public are the police.”

A few days ago, Surrey Police suddenly announced that they had sacked their head of finance for “gross misconduct”. Paul Bundy’s profile was deleted from their website. The only explanation given to the public was allegations that he hadn’t declared personal interests and had mishandled information.

Surrey Police has an annual budget of £222m and significant assets, some of which, it was recently announced, will be sold off. If any other organisation had sacked such a senior manager for a first offence we would know much more about it. The fact that Surrey Police is a publicly-funded organisation and one which relies on maintaining public confidence makes it even more scandalous that this is being covered up.

Surrey’s taxpayers and residents have a right to know what is happening to the top management of their police force. If this happened in a private sector company, the non-executive directors would represent the shareholders to investigate whether the rot spreads further and if the organisation has been dangerously compromised. Surrey Police doesn’t have non-executive directors, or anyone any more to represent the interests of the public.

Last year, the Tory-LibDem Coalition abolished police authorities and replaced them with elected Police and Crime Commissioners. The Surrey Police Authority contained independent, non-political, non-police experts who could examine sensitive cases like the charges levelled against the head of finance. They could have ensured an inquiry which was independent and seen to be independent. They would not have concealed it from the public solely because it was embarrassing to Surrey Police.

In Surrey, like elsewhere, the Police Commissioner election was a farce. The turnout was tiny and most people don’t even know they have a PCC, never mind what his name is. I can reveal, in Surrey, his name is Kevin Hurley, a former police Chief Superintendent. Interestingly, he stood as “Zero Tolerance, Ex-Chief” on the ballot paper despite never being a Chief Officer in the UK. Since his election he has tied his political reputation to that of Surrey Police. If Surrey Police were embarrassed by revelations about why Bundy was sacked, the political fall-out would damage Hurley. Commissioner Hurley is refusing to comment on the sacking.

Deputy Commissioner Harris tried to divert attention from this story when I was discussing it on Twitter with the Chief Constable:

Trying to divert attention

Harris is another ex-police officer and a friend of Hurley. He is trying to use the fact that brave junior police officers have been injured on duty to divert attention from the goings-on at the top of the organisation. I believe this shows a cynicism and lack of respect for rank and file officers in the Commissioner’s office.

I do not accuse Chief Constable Lynne Owens of this, she always acknowledges the sacrifices of the police officers she leads appropriately. However, she did claim that Mr Bundy’s right of appeal was preventing her from being open with the public:

CC Owens' defence

Chief Constable Owens went on to imply that the public’s interest was represented by using a Chief Officer from another force to hear the case.

police investigate police

Unfortunately, there have been many cases of the police investigating the police and serious irregularities, even crimes, have been covered up. Only someone totally outwith the police and known to be totally impartial can represent the public interest here.

My Offer to Surrey Police

As someone who is clearly, and well-known to be, independent of the police force, I offer to read all of the confidential documents relating to this case and talk to everyone involved. If there is genuine legal opinion that it cannot be made public until an appeal is concluded or ruled out, I will promise not to reveal the details until it is legally appropriate. I will, however, tell the Surrey public whether they have been swindled, conned, lied to, had their personal details leaked, or in any other way failed by the organisation in which they place so much trust. If Surrey Police have handled this case properly, then they will have nothing to fear because I have a record of defending them against unjust criticism.

Why me? I am used to handling responsibility. As an airline captain, I’m responsible for the safety of hundreds of people and my actions are insured for hundreds of millions of pounds. I do not take things like this lightly. Also, I was voted to represent the Labour Party in Guildford at the 2015 general election so I already have an electoral mandate.

Surrey Police desperately need to reestablish the confidence of the people of Surrey after this damaging incident within their top management. If they accept my offer to represent the public in this, they will be living up principles of their founder, Robert Peel.

To protect and to serve – policing in Surrey Heath

I spent an interesting hour and a half today discussing policing in our borough with Detective Inspector Martin Goodwin and Sergeant Julie Hillman. Martin is the borough commander and responsible for neighbourhood policing here. He invited me to his office at the Surrey Heath Borough Council building in Camberley after a public conversation we had on Twitter last night. The police station in Camberley has closed and they now have a couple of desks in the foyer of the council building to serve the public. There are many more staff and police officers upstairs.

The desks in the foyer are manned by people in uniforms but their epaulettes say, “Police Staff” on them, ie they are not police officers.

The borough is split into three areas for neighbourhood policing. Broadly, this means the six villages are one area and the rest is divided by the M3. Approximately 50 people, police staff and officers, report to Martin.

Operation Nemesis II

Surrey Heath is a very low crime area. It has the best Neighbourhood Watch network in the UK. I can vouch for the local police panels and how reassuring they are for the residents who attend them. However, there is drug-related crime even here and local police have been raiding suspected drug dealers in a plan they call Operation Nemesis II. This was reported on in this week’s Camberley News and Mail. A journalist accompanied police on one of their raids on which no drugs were found, a “negative result”.

Now, in this country police can’t just smash into people’s homes on the off-chance that they’re drug dealers so they must have had multiple reasons to suspect drugs were there. They have to convince a magistrate to authorise a search warrant. Despite that, sometimes no drugs are found, like in this case. There is no feedback loop to the magistrates to explain why this is happens in some cases so they never get to find out if no drugs were found because a dealer managed to flush them down the toilet in time or because it was a totally innocent person living there minding their own business.

I had been concerned about police concentrating resources on busting cannabis users and small-time dealers. However, Martin assured me that the aim of Operation Nemesis II is to target class A drugs. I think this is a reasonable aim and he confirmed that many other crimes are associated with class A drugs. Like most people, I want the police to target class A drugs dealers, raiding their homes if necessary, and I’m not surprised if they also find cannabis there. The communications I had read seemed only to mention cannabis and it’s unfortunate that the one raid which was witnessed by the impartial press had a “negative result”.

Martin accepted that rounding up drugs dealers only tackles the supply side of the drugs market and only for a short time. He said that it makes drugs less accessible but addicts will travel outside the borough if necessary to get drugs and may have to shoplift more to afford the petrol to get to London. He told me about how addicts in the borough are dealt with and the assistance they receive to come off drugs. This is clearly the best way to tackle drug crime, in my opinion, attacking the demand side of the market.

From what I could see though, our local police are aware of the drug scene in this borough and are acting broadly appropriately. Intelligence about drugs dealers will always be imprecise but police may have to act on it knowing it might not be correct to protect the public. It is important that they weigh up the risks of this too, of course, and don’t raid private properties without probable cause.

“Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics” – Disraeli (possibly)

We went on to discuss crime statistics. Now, Martin (obviously) did not tell me any lies about this. In fact, everything he told me was the truth (and I believed him). However, he did use a lot of statistics. The police force uses statistics for the numbers of each crime reported in each month to measure how effective they are. I don’t think this is fair on Martin and the Surrey Heath police officers. There are so many variables, other than police activity, which influence how many crimes are recorded in a given area. In a low crime area like here this is especially true. If a prolific burglar is released from prison they might commit a couple of months’ worth of crimes in two days before they can be re-arrested. This would completely skew the statistics and be no fault of the local police. The same month the following year, if this doesn’t happen, recorded crime might be seen to drop x% but again it would be due to the exceptional item not happening rather than more effective policing. Martin’s spreadsheet showed how many of each category of crime was reported in each area of the borough so far this financial year and compared it with last year. Where the number had gone up, the percentage increase was on a red background. Some were up by 100%, some were down by 100%, some were in between. All the numbers were small.

I much prefer to look at qualitative measures of crime, the fear of crime and police effectiveness. There were measures of public confidence in the police and satisfaction numbers for people who had reported anti-social behaviour. I’m happy to report that they are high. I wrote down what the exact percentages are and how they changed over a year but I don’t think that is relevant. Like me, most residents have confidence in Surrey Heath police.

I don’t think looking at year-on-year changes to small numbers of crimes is very useful. Although, they did say that we have about one domestic burglary every two days in the borough and ten years ago it was about two burglaries per day. That is a relevant stat, I think. Crime is low here and, as a resident, that’s how it feels to me. I want it to remain like that and I want our police to remain tolerant, sensible and approachable.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime – Tony Blair

We talked about local crime prevention measures too. A lot of thought has gone into this, as I would expect. Regular readers will remember that I witnessed Surrey Police’s Taser training and talked to response officers about their decision making. In neighbourhood policing the scenario is wider and longer. I think experienced officers know what works, for example, to keep fighting to a minimum in Camberley town centre on a Saturday night. I hope they don’t rely on statistics too much and can use their knowledge and experience to keep the crime numbers low here and are not forced to display ‘zero tolerance’ when it is not appropriate.

At the end, we even had a chance to discuss the Red Road and traffic problems like speeding. It’s good to know that our local police team are thinking about this too and realise it is important to residents.

It was great to have the opportunity to talk at length about policing in Surrey Heath. I’m very grateful to Martin and Julie for answering my questions patiently and openly. My message to the top management of Surrey Police is: if your short-term crime stats show an increase in Surrey Heath, do not blame the local police officers, realise that low crime numbers can show wild percentage swings for other reasons, and consider if ‘zero tolerance’ is really appropriate for somewhere like Surrey Heath.


Say Yes 2 Europe - Remain in the EU

Grassroots campaign for a decisively pro-EU result in the UK referendum


Labour in Hanover & Elm Grove

A Mad Man With A Blog

Look upwards, and share the wonders I've seen...

Sophia James

Labour Councillor for Katesgrove Ward

Cranleigh Labour Party

A voice for Cranleigh in tough times

Stanwell Voice

News and views from Robert Evans - Labour County Councillor for Stanwell Moor, Stanwell and part of North Ashford

The Camberley Eye

Community news and views about Camberley


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

Red Reflections

Tracey Hill's blog: Labour Councillor for the Hollingdean and Stanmer ward on Brighton and Hove City Council, elected 7th May 2015. All views her own. Tweets more often than blogs.

No More Page 3

Because Boobs Aren't News

Public Libraries News

What's happening to your library?

Pride's Purge

an irreverent look at UK politics


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers

%d bloggers like this: