• What You Measure is What You Get.

    Einstein : Not everything that can be counted counts. And not everything that counts can be counted.
  • About me.

    I know enough to know that at 04.00am it gets dark out on the streets. It has done this for the last twenty odd years, to my knowledge and will probably continue for the forseeable future. At some stage in this ‘future’ I shall retire and probably won’t give a damn if it still gets dark at 04.00am. Until then I shall be out there, somewhere, lurking in the shadows because someone, somewhere will be doing stuff they shouldn’t and then, well then I will introduce myself. In the meanwhile I shall try to remain sane and remember why I joined in the first place and try to ignore all the people who piss me off by making the job more complicated than it should be.
  • Opinions

    Any opinions contained in posts are mine and mine alone. Many of them will not be those of any Police Force, Police Organisation or Police Service around this country. The opinions are based on many years of working within the field of practical operational Police work and reflect the desire to do things with the minimum of interference by way of duplication for the benefit of others who themselves do not do the same job. I recognise that we all perform a wide range of roles and this is essential to make the system work. If you don’t like what you see remember you are only one click on the mouse away from leaving. I accept no responsibility for the comments left by others.
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Brett Anderson on Another 90 minutes
    Another 90 minutes |… on T.W.I.M.C.
    Another 90 minutes |… on 90 Minutes
    whichendbites on Try saying……..inst…
    Diem Burden on Try saying……..inst…
  • C.T.C. Constabulary.

    A Strategic Community Diversity Partnership. We are cutting bureaucracy and reducing the recording of target and monitoring related statistics. Our senior leaders will drive small, economical cars from our fleet surplus to save money to invest in better equipment for our frontline response officers. We are investing money to reinstate station canteens for the benefits of those 24/7 response officers. We have a pursuit policy. The message is that if you commit an offence and use a vehicle, we will follow you and stop you if necessary. It is your duty to stop when the lights and sirens are on. We take account of the findings of the Force questionnaire and are reducing the administration and management levels and returning these officers to frontline response duties. We insist on a work-life balance. We have no political masters. We are implimenting selection processes that take account of an individuals skills and proven abilities for the job. Our senior leaders will have one foot in reality and still possess the operational Policing skills they have long forgotton about and seldom used. All ranks are Police Officers first and specialists second. We will impliment career development and performance evaluation monitoring of our leaders by those officers who operate under that leadership. The most important role is that of Constable. All other roles are there to positively support the role and the responsibility of Constable and the duties performed.
  • Whichendbites

    “We trained very hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising. It can be a wonderful method of creating the illusion of progress while creating confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.”......Petronius
  • Just so.

    Taxation is just a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces.
  • Reality.

    Only in our dreams are we free. The rest of the time we need wages.
  • Rank V’s Responsibility

    Don't confuse your idea of how important you are with the responsibility of your role.
  • Meetings.

    If you had to identify, in one word, why we will never achieve our full potential, Meetings would be that word.
  • There is always a bigger picture.

    When there is no answer to your problem, there is always deflection from the need to justify giving an answer.
  • Advertisements

Simply not cricket.

Well there I was, just checking that I had not over-extended myself with my expenses claim by way of any adult pay-per-view films and I was totally distracted by the cricket.  I was drawing the comparisons with how some rather complicated things could be confused and I would not want to get into the mire for inadvertently claiming for things I had not had, were deemed to be a bit out of order or were simply too inappropriate for the tax payer to stump up for on my behalf.

I have missed out on my telephone, internet and cable TV support as I just have to cough up for that myself. I do not have a second home so must make do with a mortgage and pay all my own domestic bills like every other normal working person. I am not even able to get some money for my son to go to Uni and work as a researcher for me.

Perhaps I should have tried to become an MP and got some tremendous expenses package as a right and be done with it all. Some of the claims are simply not cricket.

I decided to forget it and concentrate on the cricket, which seemed a lot easier to understand.

Cricket…………..It’s a funny old game.  But is it easier than political expenses ?

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in, but not in the field. The side that is in, is not in the field, only the side that is out is in the field. The team that is in are in to bat until they are out and then they take the turn to be out in the field and not in because the other team will now be in and not in the field. The teams consist of eleven players on each side but they have another called the twelfth man, obviously. Each man that’s in the team that’s in eventually gets out, and when he’s out the next man in the team that’s in, comes in until such time that he is out until all the men in the team that is in, are out. There is only one man in the team which is in that is not out because he will be left by himself and will not be out. He will still be in but his team will be out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. These can be called not out, obviously. The team that is out try to get the team that is in, out, by throwing a hard ball at the wickets. Despite the ball being hard the game is not called hardball, it is called cricket. Hardball just wouldn’t be cricket. These are two sets of three long bits of wood close together. Each of the selected players from the team that is out and trying to get the team that is in, out, throw the hard ball from one set of wickets towards the other set six times. This is called an over. The over is over when the six times have been achieved. Then another six times of throwing the hard ball from the other end of the wicket. The wicket is the piece of ground, usually grass, that the game is played on with sets of wickets at each end making targets for the team that is out to try to hit to get the team that is in, out. Do not be confused between the wicket and the wickets. The wicket is the piece of grass in a measured distance of 22 yards. The wickets are the three long pieces of wood that form the targets for the team that is out to try to hit to get the team that is in, out. When they are all out, apart from the last man who does not get out, the side that was out now comes in and the side that was in but is not out, tries to get the side that is now in, out. There are many ways of getting out once you are in. The team that is out will try these ways to get the team that is in, out, and vice versa. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. This happens until all the men in the team that are in, are out. Except for the man who is in the team that is in but he will not be out, although his team will be out. There are two men called umpires who stay all out the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. The players from both teams obey the word of the umpire. To show disrespect is simply not cricket. The ground where the game is played is not confined to the wicket. It is played in a field and surrounded by a line or markers that signify the boundary of the playing area. A player for the team that is in, can hit the hard ball, thrown at him by a player of the team that is out, as one of his six balls per each over. If the ball is hit and goes beyond the boundary after hitting the ground within the line known as the boundary, then it is called a boundary and scores the princely sum of 4 runs. If it crosses the boundary without touching the ground then it score a greater number of 6 runs. Players from the team that is in, use a long piece of wood to hit the hard ball when it is thrown at them by the team that is out and trying to get the team in, out. It is not like the long pieces of wood known as the wickets, but a larger piece of wood called a bat. The players of the team that is in, use the bat to hit the hard ball and try to get it to go away from the wickets so they can score a run if they run the full length between the wickets and run on the wicket but not in the area of the wicket where the team that is out thrown the ball at the wickets to get the players in the team that are in, out. Whilst the players of the team that are in, are running on the wicket but between the wickets, but not on the area of the wicket that the team that is out throw the hardball towards the wickets to try to get the player of the team that is in, out, and the hardball hits the wickets whilst the player is running between the wickets but inside the white markings between the wickets on the wicket, the umpire may decide that the team that is out has got the batsman who is in and running between the wickets, but still on the wicket, to be out and not still in. In these circumstances that player from the in team is in fact out. He does not join the team that is out but goes of the field to wait for his team to be out and then try to get the other team out when they become in. The player from the team who hits this boundary does not have to run between the two sets of wickets as the four or six runs are his and added to his total until such time that he is out and no longer in. For all the rest of his runs, he has to hit the hard ball when it is thrown at him and run between the two sets of wickets and is granted one run for each time he is able to run a full length of the wicket distance, as defined by two white lines. If a player from the team that is out can throw the hard ball to hit the wickets whilst the player who is in is running between the two sets of wickets, then that player is deemed to be out by the umpires. When both teams have taken turns to be in and to try to get the team that is in, out, they do this all over again. So they have been in and all the men have been given out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out. The score are counted by someone who counts the scores for each of the teams that have been both in and out. The team with the highest score of runs or sometimes with the least amount of players who have been out whilst their team was in, are declared the winners. That is the end of the game, usually, but if for any reason that the game is abandoned or drawn, there can be a winning draw or possibly something that no one really gets to grips with, the Duckworth Lewis method of deciding who has won the game. This is where it gets a little complicated. This is for calculating the winner by a mathematical formula that no one understands. A bit like MP’s expenses probably. Perhaps the same decides both. 

On second thoughts………………………..Cricket and politics are surprisingly similar. One side is in and the other side is out. The side that is out tries to get the side that is in, out.  etc etc etc.


Drifting apart.

I have popped in for a nice cup of tea and caught part of the news.

That lad Jimmy Mizen was the subject of part of it. I posted about him in May of last year.

During my service I have come across the likes of Jimmy Mizenon a regular basis. The Jimmy Mizens of the world are the easy targets for those who deal in threats and intimidation because they have been brought up to understand that this is often the way they get want they want. They claim they want respect from the easy targets yet do not respect others who they consider easy targets. An easy target is exactly that. A soft touch, someone who will not fight back, not defend themselves or might be frightened enough not to go to court. Some of them do it because they actually enjoy the power and the status they feel that it gives them, this dominance and perceived respect by their actions and behaviour. The Jimmy Mizens of the world offer a soft and easy target and this is followed up by the usual line of cowardly excuses designed to try to throw the hounds of justice off the tail of the offender or try to deflect and confuse from the actions of the offender. To create doubt in the minds and somehow paint the decent and law abiding innocent victim as some part of participant or even responsible for the actions of the criminal. This is detestable. This is before we even get onto the appeals process and the attempt to give the offender some form of victim status.

The offenders take the actions but do not want the consequences because they think that the consequences will not apply to them. Sometimes, because of how they think and behave, they actually do not think about the consequences of their actions.  Actions and consequences. 

The two are linked and yet, in todays society, appear to be drifting further and further away from each other.  There is always a whole list of excuses as to why this?  Why that?

At the end of the day there are only actions and consequences.

There must be consequences for actions or we are in big, big trouble. 

Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said: “A trivial incident over absolutely nothing in a high street bakery ended three minutes later with the death of a blameless young man.”

Actions and consequences………..drifting apart.

Whilst Rome burns……..


Shameless MPs have reluctantly agreed to give up some of their lavish perks – but only in return for a massive pay rise.

This could mean their basic wage of £63,291 would rise immediately to more than £100,000.

Support is gathering in Westminster for MPs to be given a ‘proper’ salary in return for scrapping their second-home allowance.

The perk – which allows them to claim £24,000 a year for mortgage interest payments, utilities bills and similar expenses – has become a longstanding source of controversy amid claims that it is being widely abused.

Employment minister Tony McNulty, who is facing an investigation after claiming £60,000 in expenses for his parents’ home, is leading the calls for a pay rise.

A government whip also became embroiled in the expenses row today after claiming thousands of pounds for a second London home despite already having one within 10 miles of Westminster.

The Government have the nerve to moan about Fred Goodwin in an effort to deflect from their own greed.

Yet whilst Rome burns…………………..

For all you number crunchers out there……..

111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321

The only significance is that it is unusual and I liked it. Perhaps I could get an allowance for it ?

Affordable, sustainable, measureable ?

At the CTCC there are now serious efforts to try to re-brand the service provision under the cloak of something a lot less straight-forward than boiling an egg.

The new efforts to be seen to be licking the arses of the political masters seemingly knows no bounds. The new and wonderful strategy of making the Police Service fit for purpose in the 21st century has moved away from simply trying to hit whatever is the target of the latest trendy measuring quango.

We now have to make sure that everything is affordable to justify the money spent. Value for money, another justification phrase, will be measured to see if it hits all the right marks and benefits go to the most deserving cases who jump through all the right hoops..

We are having best practice, business strategy and economic sense added to the list of things to consider. Also add financially sustainable and one would accept some grey confused and muddled mind-set. It could be time to quit now.

Policing is not affordable because so much cannot be measured. It does not fit into the latest business plans and does not fit into any quarterly corporate profit projection that I have seen. It is service provision. Local services, armed forces, schools and hospitals all operate in the same way. Yet their budgets are constantly being reviewed and reduced to redistribute the efficiency savings  for things that are, politically, better points scorers and offer better short term headlines.

Lets see…………………..

This credit crunch thing ?

For as long as I can remember, the banks and financial institutions have been making millions of profits every year, without fail.  Like the phone company, the gas, water and electricity suppliers, they all make millions of profit when their annual results hit the media. How come that some of them can turn around such big losses in so short a time ?

This money invested in Icelandic Banks ?

This reduction needed in public services ?

The tax payer will bail out the Government’s allegedly prudent taxation and spending policies. The tax payer will have to bear the brunt of someone else’s failed policies and decision making processes because essential public services will have their budgets reduced at the same time that someone, somewhere, will appear on the TV or in the media trying to make everyone believe that it is all someone else’s fault or that everything is looking rosy. Exactly how much money, allegedly invested, was lost ?

At a time when the continuing efforts to spend less but convince all that more is being done and more is being spent simply confirms the efforts to promote the brand at all costs is the most  important thing to do.

The only ones who do not seem to worry about the problems are the politicians. They seem to be doing alright and are either exempt from the problems or exempt themselves from the problems because they deem themselves a special case.

Smug, arrogant and couldn’t give a toss.

Trouble is, there is always a healthy queue forming up to be the next decision maker. Where talk and meetings are  second only in importance to what expenses one is able to claim.

After all that, I am still at a total loss as to how so many local authorities, health authorities and Police authorities found so much spare cash to ‘invest’ in a foreign country’s financial institutions. At the same time we have listened to how much they are cutting back on because they are so hard up.

Military humour.

The Queen is inspecting 3 armed forces personnel, 1 from each of her fighting forces.

She asks each one what they would do if they woke up and found a camel spider in their tent on operations?

The squaddie says, “I’d reach over, grab my bayonet and stab it to death!”

The matelot says, “I’d reach over, grab my boot and batter it to death !”

The airman says, “I’d reach over, pick up my phone, call reception and ask……..

“Who the f*** has put a tent up in my hotel room?”

HT rogue gunner

Justice Down Under ?

It is not just in the UK where Police Officers can face assault and not see the offenders convicted.

The West Australian Police Union says it is considering taking civil action against three members of a family acquitted of an attack which left a police officer brain-damaged.

Robert Mcleod and his two sons Barry and Scott walked free from the Perth District Court yesterday after a jury took one and a half days to find them not guilty of assulting four police officers.

They were accused of assaulting the officers outside a tavern in the northern Perth suburb of Joondalup in February, 2008.

The attack included a flying headbutt which left 32-year-old Constable Matthew Butcher with brain damage. He is paralysed down his left side and his sight is damaged.

Constable Butcher shook his head at the verdict, and told the media he was ‘absolutely disgusted’ as he left court.

A spokesman for the West Australian Police Union, Chris Cassidy, says the verdict will have a devastating impact on morale and recruiting and warned civil action against the men is a real possibility.

“Because the balance of proof in not beyond reasonable doubt, but in fact on the balance of probabilities,” he said.

Mr Cassidy also wants video footage of the brawl to be released to the public.

“Who can see for themselves the incidents that police deal with on a day to day basis and unfortunately in this case Matt Butcher has been paralysed.”

The Minister for Police, Rob Johnson, says he would back any such move.

“We will not sit back and let these devastating attacks on our police officers go unpunished,” he said.

“The outcome of this case will have a terrible effect on police morale and I can understand that.

“What I fear will happen is that you will see police officers reluctant to go in and do their duty and try and stop a fight for fear of becoming the victim.

Behind the headlines

When you read the papers, listen to the radio or watch the TV there is always a common link. That link is to get something that will appear to be just that little bit different so that the public will pay attention, albeit for a short time, so that the focus is held for the story to unfold.

The unusual, horrific and shocking or downright odd are promoted in such a way to be sensationalised to the degree that you or I will pay attention and listen. Or in the case of the papers, to buy their own brand of headline reporting.

So when ‘Junkie burglars cheat justice’ is given headline status what does the story hold?   Exactly what is the real story?

This means that serial teenage burglars and muggers could escape with a caution if they have a drug habit. Even when a drug addict commits a string of crimes, a ‘conditional caution’ could be handed down instead of a court trial and possible jail sentence. The conditions could involve simply saying sorry to victims or repairing damage. The Tories called the controversial Government proposals ‘cheating justice’. Critics fear they remove a significant deterrent to repeat offending.

Ask anyone who has had their home burgled and see what answer you get. It will not be about saying sorry, helping with drugs rehabilitation or community service. Yet the constant list of compassion, new and radical solutions to reduce the offences and the support for the offender leave the poor old victim feeling like they are simply not important in the way of things.

It was reported that last year, under-18s committed more than 6,500 house burglaries and 6,300 robberies and were involved in 47,000 cases of theft and handling stolen goods.

Add to this the fact that a  former SAS commander in Afghanistan has claimed the Government had ‘blood on its hands’ over the ‘unnecessary deaths’ of four soldiers killed when their Snatch Land Rover hit a roadside bomb then you could be surprised to think that there was a point to this type of headline. Major Sebastian Morley reportedly said Whitehall officials and military commanders repeatedly ignored his warnings troops would be killed if they continued to use the ‘unsafe’ vehicles. The 40-year-old resigned following the death of Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first female soldier to die in Afghanistan, and three of her male colleagues after their Snatch hit an anti-tank mine in Helmand province in June last year. The news is not just about what has been allowed to take place but the fact that a senior armed forces officer see it necessary to stick his head above the parapet and complain that his men and women are not getting the correct levels of equipment and logistical support. The spin and deflection to other areas of conversation brought forward to get whoever is quoted talking happily away from the real issues. What exactly is the real story ?

There are times when the headlines give us an insight into the story. There are times when the story is unpleasant and causes you to question this thing called humanity. There are also times when the headlines add importance or a higher reportable status to the story and make it interesting, sometimes far more interesting than it should perhaps be.

The one thing that these headlines do not tell you is the continual efforts to be seen to be doing more for less. The continual efforts for organisations or individuals to try to get positive headlines, to promote their chosen brand, almost on a daily basis and create the illusion that somehow every thing is going well and all is OK when it is not and they do not have the answers that work. Instead they try to convince everyone of small things and deflect to what they are happy to talk about and is a lot less uncomfortable for them because they do not have to give answers about the awkward and complicated stuff.

The media do not just report the news. They promote and sell the news by trying to get it packaged in a way that gets you to read it, listen to it or watch it from their angle.  To sell it to you from their own particular delivery. Any opinion or action seems always to be challenged by the opposite viewpoint, for no other reason than there is sometimes another viewpoint. Reporters and presenters always seem to take the opposite view from that belonging to who they interview, just to get justification for an alternative view and not necessarily just to report.

Its business, its corporate, its strategic and it stinks because they act as judges and juries and are happy to sensationalise whatever happens to promote their brand under the umbrella claims of simply reporting the news.

At the same time we know what celebrities have for breakfast, what colour socks they wear and who is shagging who, yet we don’t know what happens in the next street unless it involves something shocking and unpleasant.  News is only ever short lived because the efforts to get the next big story packaged up in all its glossy glory keeps those headlines and they must be kept coming. There is almost never any follow up or continuation because the next atrocity or event is the be all and end all of the media bandwagon. Todays news celebrities are tomorrows forgotten has beens.

The search is on for the next and the next and the next.

I wonder what will be discussed at the next CTCC senior leadership team meeting ?     What can be done to promote the brand, perhaps ? What positive press releases can we muster ? Perhaps they will make the decision to take it in turns to bring the biscuits to accompany the coffee instead of simply having them supplied.

Everyone seems to be as bad as one another in this corporate world.

Here’s to the next headline.