Leaving one's beat

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry David, I do drift off-topic sometimes.

I'll read your articles in the morning.

By the way, Inspector Davis of the Islington case, was he the model for Stephen Fry's Colonel Melchett

[David Orsam]

By the way, Inspector Davis of the Islington case, was he the model for Stephen Fry's Colonel Melchett

Glad you've got started on the book! You might have noticed that P.C. George Wood left his point duty to attend at 114 Rotherfield Street after being notified of Mrs Wootten's death...he says trying to bring thread back on topic.

[harry]

If it's a question of did Mizen have reson to leave his beat and go to Buc'ks row,the answer is yes.The decision was his,there was no supervisor to direct him.He was acting on a report by members of the public.A police officer was trained to respond to such reports,and to act on his own initiative.
Should he have gone immediately or continued to knock up is a different question.

[Robert St Devil]

if he had detained them or written down their names and addresses then i would say yes. imagine had the conversation gone like this:

PC Neil:. hey, what are you doing here?
PC Mizen: two blokes told me there was a dead woman over here
N: two blokes! who were they?
M: umh, y'know, two blokes... walking... like, to work...

[DJA]

I really can't take over every thread on this forum with talk of my next book (about 80s pop music!), and you'll have to wait to find out why I am talking about Jack the Ripper in it, so let's get back to leaving one's beat....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyclnTdrSOI

[Bridewell]

Firstly an apology to David Orsam for not having answered a question posed three years ago. Actually I pretty much agree with the reply now given by another poster, in that a report of a woman being either dead or drunk would require an immediate response, as Mizen only had the opinion of Cross and Paul as to her actual state. She might have been seriously ill or dying, rather than dead or drunk, and it was the officer's duty to check.

Since the question was first posed I have posted the following extract from "Dickens's Dictionary of London 1888" on another thread:-

"SPECIAL DUTIES:

The following questions have been submitted to the Metropolitan Police Department and have received the annexed replies:

Whether the police on ordinary night duty are allowed to be made available for calling private individuals in time for early trains etc.

The police are not only allowed, but are taught that they are bound to render this or any other service in their power to the inhabitants."

If we assume that the Dickens compilers weren't making it up as they went along, they seem to have someone in authority at the Metropolitan Police saying that knocking up was part of a beat officer's duty. What it wasn't IMHO was a higher priority than investigating what Cross and Paul had reported because the first duty of a constable, from the foundation of the Metropolitan Police (and laid down by Rowan & Mayne) was the protection of life. I can't go along with the argument that, as Nichols was in fact dead, she was a lower priority than knocking-up - because Mizen didn't know that she was dead. My recollection (I don't have access to my copy of "The Ultimate" to check this) is that Cross and/or Paul denied making any reference to a constable being already present on Bucks Row. Did Mizen make that bit up? It's unknowable, but I don't discount the possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I really can't take over every thread on this forum with talk of my next book (about 80s pop music!), and you'll have to wait to find out why I am talking about Jack the Ripper in it, so let's get back to leaving one's beat....

Anyone interested in the subject is advised to read my OP in this thread ('The Conflicts of PC Mizen'):

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8561

I subsequently learnt more about fixed points; see the short sub-article entitled 'Not So Fixed Points' about halfway down the page here:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/somethoughts.htm

Excellent, detailed stuff David. As per...

[David Orsam]

Excellent, detailed stuff David. As per...

Thanks HS.

[David Orsam]

If we assume that the Dickens compilers weren't making it up as they went along, they seem to have someone in authority at the Metropolitan Police saying that knocking up was part of a beat officer's duty.

I'm surprised you say this Bridewell. I thought you had read my article in which I posted the Police Orders which say the very same thing as in Dickens (and, indeed, Dickens is doing no more than repeating what was in Police Orders).

What it wasn't IMHO was a higher priority than investigating what Cross and Paul had reported because the first duty of a constable, from the foundation of the Metropolitan Police (and laid down by Rowan & Mayne) was the protection of life.

This is undoubtedly true but how did attending to a supposedly drunk woman lying in the street (in another beat) involve protection of life?

Was a beat officer responsible for EVERY drunk person on EVERY other beat in London?

[David Orsam]

She might have been seriously ill or dying, rather than dead or drunk, and it was the officer's duty to check.

It was certainly the duty of the officer on the beat in which the woman was lying. The question is, whether an officer on another beat (in another division) should have interrupted the official service he was providing to residents to enable them to get to work on time in the morning in order to check out a report of a woman lying on the street (who might equally have been sleeping). That is not, I suggest, quite as clear cut as you seem to think it is

[drstrange169]

"in another division" is the salient point here. If Mizen chose to go, then there had to be a compelling reason to cross borders, so to speak.

[Wickerman]

It was certainly the duty of the officer on the beat in which the woman was lying. The question is, whether an officer on another beat (in another division) should have interrupted the official service he was providing to residents to enable them to get to work on time in the morning in order to check out a report of a woman lying on the street (who might equally have been sleeping). That is not, I suggest, quite as clear cut as you seem to think it is

This issue shifts from a question of duty to a question of morals.
I can't imagine Mizen (H Div.) being reprimanded for leaving his beat, at least until Neil (J Div.) showed up to take care of the situation. Mizen would then be expected to return.
They both belong to the same club (the Met.), when all is said and done.

So long as nothing disastrous occurred on Mizen's beat while he was gone.

[harry]

It was not a question pf morals,it was purely a question of duty.Mizen would have had no Idea as to whether he was being told the truth by Cross and /or Paul.It was an offence to leave his(Mizen) detailed area of duty,but it was an acceptable defence if he could prove reasonable cause for doing so.
A report of a woman being drunk,and an officer already in attendance,would not be reasonable cause,my opinion,so it had to be something else that decided Mizen,and that was,I believe, the mention that she could be dead,and there was no officer in attendance.

[drstrange169]

>>It was not a question pf morals,it was purely a question of duty.Mizen would have had no Idea as to whether he was being told the truth by Cross and /or Paul.<<

Precisely.What if they had been buglars getting rid of the policeman on the beat so they could rob a shop.That wouldn't have gone down too well back at the station.

[Elamarna]

This is a topic I have been working on for some time now.

I do not wish to present all of my views at present as the work is not finished yet, and this debate highlights to me many of the issues.

So let's just make a few observations.

1. Was a police officer required to leave his beat if asked to?

Not unless it was an emergency situation or the request came from another officer. In which case he had a legitimate reason to do so.

2. Would a police officer be expected to cross divisional boundaries.

Again only in an emergency situation or if requested by another officer.


3. Was the situation on the 31st August, such that we should have expected Mizen to leave his Beat and cross divisional boundaries ?

If he seriously believed the situation was an emergency then yes.
If he believed he had been requested by another officer again yes.



The big question is (Apart from the another policeman wants you suggestion) not how should he have reacted but how did he react?

After the event and before he gives his testimony on the 3rd: What effect if any did the inquest testimony of PC Neil on the 1st and the Lloyds Weekly statement of Paul on the 2nd have on him? What effect might possible public opinion have on him?



Steve