Policing Protocol

[Fleetwood Mac]

Ladies and Gents,

Reading through bits and pieces of newspaper reports and the like:

I've read claims that the police were restricted in their actions in a way the French police weren't. Also, I have read that the police had to make 'elaborate arrangements' in order to enter someone's property. Furthermore, I have read claims that it was 'unBritish' to stop and search people without due cause.

Has anyone undertaken research into the supposed powers held by French police that were unavailable to British police?

Thanks in advance for authoritative comments.

[Monty]

Fleetwood,

The British powers that be preferred an overt policing system drawn on the prevention and dectection of crime. They were determined to avoid a military view of their police.

The French tended to use their police as form of miliatary force and for espionaige on their public. Their use of agent provocateurs being a major difference, with the British seeing that tactic as decietful....basically its just not cricket.

British Bobbies had to protect the Queens highways and byways. They were not permitted to enter private premises unless invited to by its owner or if they felt a crimes had or was about to take place. The French Gendarmes pretty much had carte blanche to do as they pleased.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood,

British Bobbies had to protect the Queens highways and byways. They were not permitted to enter private premises unless invited to by its owner or if they felt a crimes had or was about to take place. The French Gendarmes pretty much had carte blanche to do as they pleased.

Monty

Thanks for that Monty.

I wonder how this squares with Anderson's statement that he would have been caught (by means of French procedure).

I suppose the obvious conclusion is that they knew (or thought they knew) who he was, and simply couldn't access the premises to secure evidence?

[lynn cates]

Andrieux

Hello Neil. You've beaten me to the punch. I was going to point out that the French Police Chief Andrieux wished to have some Anarchists arrested. He could not induce them to act so he set some bombs off in Paris and blamed it on the Anarchists.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Of course, such behaviour was frowned on by most Brits at the time who prided themselves on their liberal politics. They were very reluctant to have a political police.

Hey, we are agreeing!

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Lynn,

The world would be dull if we agreed on all things, and not progressive either.

It seems the British Bobby, with all his faults, did not exceed his position. Since its conception in 1829, the New Police were treated with distain. It wasn't until the late 1800s that public support and respect began to turn in their favour. Previous to that they were open to ridicule, though in some areas of society that distain and ridicule returned during the murders. We see this throughout the newsreports.

We must bear in mind life as a PC was bloody hard. The labours were endless, long hours prematurely aged them, and all for roughly the same pay a labourer, though there were perks. However I digress.

The French style of Police were servants to the goverment, the British more servants to the people. That's a simplistic view though.

Monty

[lynn cates]

agreeable

Hello Neil. Make it two in a row.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

You paint a charmingly benign portrait of the LVP Metropolitan Police.

On 8th September 1888, The Link, a weekly journal published by the Law and Liberty League, described what it saw as the fundamental raison d'êtres of Sir Charles Warren and James Monro.

Sir Charles Warren, it observed, was "bitten by the military craze" and wanted to be the "head of an army of Gendarmes", whilst James Monro "was bitten by the craze of being a political policeman, the head of an English third section [a reference to Russia's Tsarist secret police]. Mr. Monro could think of nothing but dynamite and Invincibles. Sir Charles Warren dreams of the threatened Revolution, and sends his horsemen to smash up political meetings."

The LVP Metropolitan Police was far from your warm and cuddly notion of "Dixon of Dock Green".

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

I am a sympathist Simon, what do you expect?

You are talking about order, whereas I was referring to criminal activity.

Warren was called in to satisfy the public clamour for the strict organision of the force after what was deemed a lax tennature, towards the end at least, of Henderson.

Hendersons inefficiency made way for Warrens highly organised and strict rule, something which both the Goverment and public alike demanded.

Yes, as I stated, my post was simplistic. Yes, it wasn't the cuddly and warm policing of Dock Green. However it never was and never will be, though the hand tying during the recent summer riots shows that such an approach does not work.

And when it comes to times of crisis, when your property and well being is in danger, is it warm and cuddly you want?

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

The Great Difference

...
I've read claims that the police were restricted in their actions in a way the French police weren't. Also, I have read that the police had to make 'elaborate arrangements' in order to enter someone's property. Furthermore, I have read claims that it was 'unBritish' to stop and search people without due cause.
Has anyone undertaken research into the supposed powers held by French police that were unavailable to British police?
Thanks in advance for authoritative comments.

The great difference between the British and French Police methods was a result of the contrast between the powers created by English and French law.

For an example, in France, if a person suspected as a criminal who had been in the hands of the police on a previous occasion and against whom there was the flimsiest of evidence (often none at all) he could be simply seized by the police and questioned minutely. They could also hold that person until they satisfied themselves that they had made a mistake.

In England no one could be arrested in such a summary fashion and if there was good reason to suspect a person was a criminal all that could be done was to charge them before a magistrate and if the charge failed there was no way by which that person could be subjected to examination for purposes of identification.

So the main difference was that in France a suspect could be detained without charge and questioned until the police were happy to release him, whereas in England the strict laws prevented this and hard evidence and a charge was required to detain a person.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So the main difference was that in France a suspect could be detained without charge and questioned until the police were happy to release him, whereas in England the strict laws prevented this and hard evidence and a charge was required to detain a person.

Thanks for that, Stewart.

Seems Anderson, at the very least, thought he knew the murderer's identity and a spot of questioning, while lacking hard evidence, could have turned him over.

Great sentiment on behalf of the British police, by the way. But, where did it all go wrong. Oh, I know, the idea that the world is full of terrorists. That's where government by fear gets us: we move away from the cornerstone/s of democracy.

[lynn cates]

date

Hello Mac.

"where did it all go wrong[?]"

Well, if pressed for a date, I'd try May 6, 1882--the date of the Phoenix Park Murders. That upset many an apple cart.

Cheers.
LC

[PC Roadnight]

I agree that the French & British Police had different methods and constraints upon their behaviour (and still do!)

However, from the Vagrancy Act in the 1850s the Met had strong powers to question persons whom they suspected of unlawful behaviour in the street. Entering property in pursuit of a suspect was permitted, and search warrants were easily obtained if there was reasonable cause.

This Act formed the mainstay of policing in London until recent years. Certainly in the 60s section 54 arrests for 'Suss' were the main way we defeated the organised vehicle thefts in London.

[Bridewell]

Hi Monty & Lynn.

Where did it all go wrong? Pretty much everywhere. As for the when, it was when police officers decided that foot patrol was beneath their dignity and became reluctant to get out of their cars. Sad, but true. Officers used to refer to a (non-existent) piece of legislation, known as The Ways and Means Act which did exactly what it said on the tin. For the most part it is, and always has been, the application of the law, rather than the law itself which has been lacking. The controversial elements of the Vagrancy Act were repealed because, in some areas the powers were abused. In places where they weren't the baby went out with the bathwater.

[PC Roadnight]

Hi Monty & Lynn.

Where did it all go wrong? Pretty much everywhere. As for the when, it was when police officers decided that foot patrol was beneath their dignity and became reluctant to get out of their cars. Sad, but true. Officers used to refer to a (non-existent) piece of legislation, known as The Ways and Means Act which did exactly what it said on the tin. For the most part it is, and always has been, the application of the law, rather than the law itself which has been lacking. The controversial elements of the Vagrancy Act were repealed because, in some areas the powers were abused. In places where they weren't the baby went out with the bathwater.

In the late 1960s two of the best things to happen in the life of a PC were the introduction of personal radios and the breathalyser. The worst? The introduction of 'Panda Cars'.

Not because PCs wanted to sit on their backsides all day, as you seem to imply, but because it enabled Forces to avoid increasing the establishment of officers on the street. 'Modernisation' and 'Fast Response' were the watchwords instead of feet on the street. This led to 'Fire Brigade' policing and, yes, the divorcing of police from the community, which I believe is behind many of the current disaffections with the current Police 'Service'.
Peter

[Monty]

I couldn,t agree more Peter, spot on.

Monty