While I'm writing up a post about Laird and his time at Swansea, and in the middle of replying to a message from another user, I've been keeping up with this thread and I'd like to add my opinion. Not to go 'dear diary' on everyone, but I'm going to start with my relationship to the police, as I understand that some of the posters I'm quoting are current officers, and while my intention is not to offend anyone, I want to make it clear where my opinions have come from and why I feel strongly about certain things especially pertaining to the Sarah Everard case.
I have been arrested many times for various reasons, all non-violent and I have never gone to jail, though I have been sectioned a few times. Drug addiction was often the cause. I have had many interactions with the police, some were very positive, and some negative, one in particular while I was pretty young was traumatic, and was instrumental in making me understand the dangers of a bad cop (and failings in the system). I mentioned positive experiences, and there's been a few times where the police have not only aided me, but gone above and beyond. I have also lived in communities where there is a great distrust of law enforcement, both for their historical actions in the community, and their present conduct, often stemming from racial and classist reasons. Finally my younger brother became a cop a few years ago, we live in different parts of the country now but he is someone I admire, he is compassionate and empathetic, and while he's cognisant of the failings of the current system, he believes that by being a good cop and reporting failures and corruption within the system he can change things. I think that's impossible by design, but it does give me an insight into someone working within law enforcement with genuinely good intentions, and that there are many cops who do go out to work to make a positive impact often facing situations that are traumatic and often incomprehensible to many in other lines of work. While I think the system (and the laws themselves) are flawed and cause pain to many, I do acknowledge that there are many officers who do their best and make a difference at an individual level.
I'm going to address my problem with police interactions with the public at the end of my post, but I'm going to make a brief point about what you've said here regarding the 'bizarre ideas for policing' and how that relates to a lack of insight or knowledge from the public. I think there's a few things related to this (and I'll talk about them at the end as well), one is the opaque nature of certain laws and rights the public have, another is the very worrying amount of law enforcement officers who don't actually know many of the laws they're acting upon ( and more nefariously, those who do but are willing to work outside of these confines) I am not directing those points at any of the coppers in this thread. Again I'll go into this slightly more at the end of the post, but I'm just going to highlight an example of what I'm talking about.
When someone suggested that , you went on to call that a stupid suggestion that displayed his lack of insight and understanding of the complexities of policing. Yet Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave when asked about what a woman should do if she felt unsure about the authenticity of the officer, advised that she should maybe run into a random house, or wave down a passing bus. He then said that maybe the person should ask to use their radio to speak to the radio operator. Due to the job you do, I know that you understand that Ephgrave's suggestions are not just hilariously incompetent, but also dangerous. The system suggested by the user makes far more sense than what is being proposed by Ephgrave, yes it would require massive changes and could be seen as untentable at the current moment, but at least it's a coherent suggestion. Those suggestions I relayed to you came from one of the most senior officers in the country, it doesn't just contradict the current laws, it's also incoherent in the sense that it goes against other guidelines. Those contradictions bring me to the next thing I want to talk about.
While acknowledging the benefits of why unmarked and covert cars are employed, I think it's important to point out some of the flaws (I'll get on to plain clothed officers next).
What happened to Sarah Everard has added scrutiny into the way that law enforcement engage with the public. Everyone on this island knows about it, and there is going to be greater trepidation now when it comes to dealing with the police. And I think using unmarked cars is something that has fundamental flaws, especially given the laws around them.
I have various issues regarding this, but the two I'm going to focus on are what are the rules about when you have to pull over, and what should you do if you aren't sure if it's not actually an unmarked police car.
1. You only have to pull over for an unmarked police car if the driver is in uniform.
I think it's obvious why this doesn't make sense. To be able to identify that the unmarked car behind you is being driven by a constable in uniform could be extremely difficult unless you came to a stop, especially in certain weather conditions. This rule has two reasons for being nonsensical, and actually hostile. One is that you could be put in danger by coming to a stop and allowing the driver to approach you to confirm their identity, and second insidious reason is that you could be prosecuted for not coming to a stop because you didn't pull over for the cop in uniform, though you may have not been able to confirm what they were wearing. But I mean it's not like someone would pretend to be an officer wearing uniform in an unmarked would they? Here's the second problem.
2. The advice about what to do when an unmarked police car flags you is inconsistent and contradictory
To anchor the problem with the law here, there have been cases where people have pretended to be in an unmarked police car, while sometimes wearing police uniform. This isn't an isolated case, it happens every year. What is the advice from the police? Well it depends on who you ask. In 2016 Essex advised drivers to ring 999 and to not pull over unless you were absolutely sure. West Yorkshire police recommended that instead of pulling over at the first opportunity, you should continue to drive until you find a public place like a petrol station, or if desperate a random house driveway, yet they also warned that the police could take action for this and if they did it would be a matter for the courts to decide. Devon and Cornwall police advise that if you are unsure, you are not required to stop. Yet this could (and has) ended up becoming a conviction.
On a slightly related point, I also think it's absurd that a plain clothed policeman, in an umarked car, is allowed to request a driver pull over. The actual laws around this are a little convoluted, but Rutherford vs Independent police complaints commission upheld that this is permissible.
For those unaware of the case, two plain clothed officers in an unmarked car pulled over an 18 year old and a 17 year old who were lawfully driving their mother's car. The officers profiled the boys solely on their age. One officer took the driver to the police car, and other police officer got into the boys car with the younger brother. The younger brother being nervous of this plain clothed man who had got into the car with him, attempted to leave the car, when he did so the officer used force to restrain him. The older brother ran back to his brother, freed him, and they attempted to run away. The two plain clothed policemen chased after them, and upon reaching them, and violently subdued them and then put them under arrest.
There's a couple pertinent things about this case. One is the danger of not knowing your rights, the second is the danger of police officers not knowing their rights, the third is the danger of individual police officers being moronic and the spirit of the law not being abided to. If someone thinks my comments on the two officers in this case are unfair I would advise you to read the case, it's readily available online and also shows the danger of lodging a complaint.
Again, I want to acknowledge the benefits of off-duty officers, and I think in certain situations it can be very beneficial. I wouldn't advocate for removing that function, but as diarm mentioned and you agreed, there is a difference between a serious crime and the crime Couzens fabricated. And I don't actually think that there is no practical solution, while many of the problems and challenges that the police face are multifaceted and complex without a simple fix, this is one of the easier things to confront.
In the last few days there has been some proposals and some changes by the various police forces regarding plain clothed officers (most of them fairly impotent), and the issues with off-duty officers is tangentially related in that identification and proof of authenticity can be problematic. There's also the disturbing lack of oversight that can occur in these situations. There's plenty of cases I can draw from but a recent one would be PC Oliver Banfield, a 25 year off-duty officer who drunkenly assaulted a woman. While there's literally a plethora of cases I could have chosen to make my point, this one is particularly insightful because it was captured on CCTV, if you google the details you can watch a short clip. To quickly summarise, he drunkenly accosts a woman, and then using his police credentials he threatens her and shoves her to the ground, accusing her of assault. This case highlights a lot of issues with the off-duty system, and also the problems with our legal system and how the police deal with complaints (there's a lot to unpack about that last point and I'll make a thread about it in the future). In these situations if not for the luck of it being caught on CCTV, it can be very difficult to get anywhere. This incident was literally filmed and she still had to fight and get external aid to push it through.
There are so many cases that involve off-duty officers using their warrant card in a way that is clearly not the intended function. Using a freedom of information request you can see the various complaints which range from bullying and intimidation, to abhorrent acts. This is something that has an obvious explanation, the idea that officers have the exact same powers while on duty and off duty will inevitably lead to abuse of those powers. The problem of not having rigorous and lawfully implemented guidelines and relying on the individual's sense of duty and responsibility to act correctly is doomed to failure. The general vagueness of certain laws is also something I want to talk about (certain laws about searches, police radio, warrant cards), but it's 5am so I'll do it in my post tomorrow.
Have the responsibilities and powers of an on-duty and off-duty officer be different. There's no need for an off-duty officer to involve himself in situations that aren't serious or pressing. The fact that the personal threshold for when an off-duty officer will identify themselves as a law enforcement officer ranges wildly depending on the individual is a problem. Some advise being a professional witness, only involving oneself is there is potential of someone being harmed. Some say that regardless of the seriousness of the problem they feel duty bound to intervene. Some advise minor crimes should be avoided but reported. It's a problem for the public and it's a problem for officers, they don't know if a certain situation where they didn't intervene could result in them being penalised for not doing their duty. If the public know that you can't be arrested by some off-duty cop in plain clothes for a "covid violation" it would give you much more confidence in refusing to get into an unmarked car at the request of a man wearing plain clothes.
There's a lot more to be said about off-duty officers and the innate problems it can bring to both the public and the officers themselves, and while this case has put off-duty officers and plain clothed officers into the spotlight, I want to argue against the idea that this was unavoidable.
I don't want to spend too much time on what is one small hypothetical fix, I just want to show why I think some of the arguments don't hold water.
@diarm made the point about a system like the one he uses at work. Obviously it was a quick suggestion and it's very much a basic jumping off point to highlight that this isn't some impossible problem, and he's completely correct. Rado above gave a rough idea of how it could function and an experienced cop in Religion thought it plausible (while highlighting the importance of off duty officers being able to enforce the law).
Before I talk about feasibility, I want to explain why the bolded sentences are incorrect, and also why I disagree with Dante's post.
Like I said prior I don't want to spend too much time discussing this hypothetical function, but I find it pertinent in the sense that a few posts have conveyed that this was something that could not have been stopped, which is not only wrong but also fundamentally misunderstands the situation.
This actually ties into Dante's comment,
"
It's a difficult thing to accept for middle class white people in the first world, but there are some things that you can't save yourself from."
Stopping murders and such is of course a gargantuan task. While it's something that should obviously be strived towards, it will be something that continues to the end of time. But what you've said with your sentence, and with which Leroy has agreed, is that it is impossible to stop a police officer from using his powers to abduct, rape and kill someone. This blatantly isn't the case, there's evidence all around us of how certain safeguarding procedures have evolved to ensure more safety, greater oversight and accountability. One poster made a sarcastic comment about how Shipman's murders didn't result in changes to the system, and as a few other posters pointed out, it directly influenced safeguarding measures.
As for the three bolded sentences about the app, in this scenario an off-duty officer would have to switch to on-duty to be able to lawfully implement their powers. A visual indicator that this person is working with oversight. Without the visual confirmation the victim in this hypothetical scenario would know the officer was not authorised.
This is another basic example of a system that would limit the opportunities for a false arrest and abduction. The idea that there is no possible way to stop a police officer (or someone impersonating one) of falsely arresting someone and killing them using their law enforcement powers is just not true.
As for feasibility about whether these systems could be implemented, I think it's a bit of a wet squib of an argument. Breaking down the financial situation of the police, both in terms of how much it is funded and how the money is spent is a pretty broad task and there are many things I would change about that, both to serve the general public and to also help law enforcement officers working under incredible pressure. Both for economic reasons and also moral ones. That deserves in a dedicated police thread, so I'll just leave it at yes, I think the hypothetical measures highlighted above would be financially feasible. And while I don't think it would have the same cost to benefit ratio that body cameras had, initially there was plenty of opposition against those, with plenty of people claiming it would be impossible to implement for various reasons. Whereas now while are there some major issues with them, I think it's safe to say they've been a success for both police officers and the public.
The second part is the more interesting bit, and the one that is pertinent to this thread. I agree with you, a police officer using his powers to abduct and murder a woman is very rare. While I think lesser crimes do get committed with more frequency, I think what Wayne Couzens did while acting as a police officer is unlikely to happen again on a frequent basis. While the idea of improving these systems to stop someone using their powers like this again is obviously one purpose, the one with greater reach would be to instil the general public with confidence in law enforcement officers in future situations. It's often a nerve wracking experience for many people when dealing with law enforcement in the first place, now with this case being engrained into the public, these situations have just become more difficult for your average cop.
We've already seen senior police officials give contradicting advice, incoherent advice, advice that advocates illegal actions. This case will have ramifications going forward and I think the poor and contradictory responses from some of the senior rank has compounded things.
