The police must do better, not more
Writing in The Telegraph on Monday, two prominent officers lamented the current state of policing in Britain. Nick Smart, president of the Police Superintendents' Association, and Tiff Lynch, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said morale had been crushed by a broken system.
'The service is in crisis,' they wrote. Pay was too low, work was too hard and the police are facing further real terms cuts in spending when the Chancellor makes her dispositions known today.
Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, was reportedly battling with the Treasury until the 11th hour trying to get more money for policing but failed. She has been under pressure from senior officers for weeks to get a better deal.
They said there may have been more money and more officers but these trends had not kept pace with the rise in the population. Yet overall per-capita police numbers are now close to record levels. We used to have far fewer police officers and yet they were far more visible.
Their presence on the streets was designed to fulfil Robert Peel's first principle of policing, which is to keep order and prevent crime.
Police chiefs maintain that they direct scarce resources where they are most needed and yet this is impossible to square with stories of half a dozen officers being sent to arrest someone for sending an injudicious tweet to a school website.
A news report just this week is emblematic of the problem: the couple who went to reclaim their own stolen car because the police refused to do anything about it. There have been many cases of bikes put up for sale by thieves and owners having to recover their property because the police were not interested.
Our politicians must share the blame for loading the police with tasks they never used to have by passing laws that require any complaint of hurt feelings, however minor or vindictively made, to be investigated. But the police seem content to prioritise these non-crimes over real ones like burglary, thefts of mobile phones or shoplifting.
The problem the police have when demanding more money is that the public no longer feels they make the right choices with the resources they have. Nowadays, they are less a force for law and order than a glorified community service, expected to deal with society's ills rather than crime. As a matter of urgency, they need to forge a new social contract with the people they serve.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Not OK, Karen! Court loses it when lawyer calls someone ‘Karen' in legal papers: ‘Borderline racist, sexist, and ageist'
You Karen't say that! A British court tore into an attorney who called someone a 'Karen' in papers for a discrimination case — calling the term 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' according to a report. A British employment tribunal judge ruled that Karen is a 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' slang term. Witoon – Sylvia Constance, a 74-year-old black woman, was suing for discrimination after she was axed from a charity company called Harpenden Mencap — but an employment tribunal took issue when the ousted worker's rep used the phrase in court papers, the Independent reported. Attorney Christine Yates argued leadership at the charity — supports adults with learning disabilities — leadership 'acted like stereotypical Karens' — claiming they weaponized their privilege to suspend and fire Constance over 'fictitious claims, the report said. Constance accused the organization of unfair dismissal, racial and age discrimination and of launching a campaign to oust her based on prejudice, the outlet said. Yates alleged that a white, female management team had colluded with white male residents under their care to create a racist and misogynistic smear campaign, the outlet reported. Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with the use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. – Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with Yates's use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. 'We note Christine Yates uses the slang term 'Karen', which is a pejorative and borderline racist, sexist, and ageist term,' Alliot said. The tribunal ultimately dismissed Constance's claims, siding with the charity for firing her in June 2023 over an 'irretrievable breakdown' of workplace relationships, the outlet reported. Alliot also ruled that the complaints against Constance were 'legitimate,' the outlet said.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Glastonbury slams Bob Vylan's 'death to' Israel chant: 'Crossed a line'
GLASTONBURY, England − Glastonbury organizers say they're appalled by onstage chanting against the Israeli military during a performance by the punk-rap duo Bob Vylan, saying the music festival was no place for antisemitism or incitement to violence. During a show on Saturday, June 28, the duo chanted "Death, death, to the IDF" in apparent reference to the Israel Defense Forces, the formal name of the Israeli military. British police said they were considering whether to launch an investigation after artists at Glastonbury made anti-Israel comments on stage, without naming Bob Vylan. "Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation," Avon and Somerset Police in western England, where the festival is held, said on X. A post shared by Glastonbury Festival (@glastofest) Festival organizers criticized the chanting by Bob Vylan, made up of guitarist and singer Bobby Vylan and drummer Bobbie Vylan, their stage names. "Their chants very much crossed a line, and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence," the festival said in a statement shared on Instagram. The Israeli Embassy in Britain condemned the "inflammatory and hateful rhetoric expressed" at the festival. Bob Vylan's band members did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment. Their show on the festival's West Holts stage took place just before controversial Irish rap trio Kneecap played to a huge crowd, leading chants against British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and also taking aim at Israel. During the show, frontman Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh accused Israel of committing war crimes, saying: "There's no hiding it." Known by the stage name Mo Chara, he was charged with a terrorism offence last month for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah at a concert. He has denied the charge. Senior members of Starmer's government also criticized the chants by Bob Vylan. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said it was appalling that the comments had been made on stage, adding that he was also appalled by violence committed by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. "I'd also say to the Israeli Embassy, get your own house in order in terms of the conduct of your own citizens and the settlers in the West Bank," Streeting told Sky News. "I wish they'd take the violence of their own citizens toward Palestinians more seriously." Political commentator Ash Sarkar said it was typical of punk musicians to spark controversy. "Don't book punk bands if you don't want them to do punk stuff," said Sarkar, a contributing editor to Novara Media, a leftist media organization. Contributing: Sophie Royle, Reuters
