Who Polices the Police?
| Published date | 01 September 1981 |
| Date | 01 September 1981 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058102800408 |
| Author | Brian Williams |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
138
Who
Polices
the
Police?
BRIAN
WILLIAMS,
probation
officer,
Darlington,
reports.
At
a
fringe
meeting
Cllr.
Paul
Boateng,
Chairman
of
the
GLC’s
Police
’Committee,
outlined
plans
to
bring
the
Metropolitan
and
other
police
forces
under
greater
democratic
control.
He
argued
that
the
present
administration
of
the
police
is
at
once
profoundly
political
and
deeply
undemocratic.
While
acknowledging
that
there
are
valuable
experiments
in
community
involvement
going
on
at
present,
he
urged
that
’community
policing’
should
be
viewed
with
circumspection,
given
its
largely
unconsidered
implications
for
the
civil
liberties
of
offenders.
He
admitted
that
he
and
others
advocating
greater
democratic
involvement
in
policing
are
involved
in
a
power
struggle,
and
one
that
can
be
resolved
only
politically.
Probation
officers
in
the
meeting
spoke
of
local
concerns
in
their
areas,
and
Cllr.
Boateng
seemed
glad
to
receive
confirmation
of
some
of
his
ideas—both
about
the
need
for
change
and
about
the
possibilities
of
making
greater
use
of the
existing
element
of
democratic
oversight.
He
made
it
clear
that
he
felt
that
the
present
state
of
affairs
constituted
a
political
and
constitutional
crisis,
and
that
the
critical
time
must
shortly
come
on
this
issue.
Lord
Scarman’s
findings
and
the
reactions
to
them
may
well
have
proved
him
right
by
the
time
the
Journal
is
published.
Correspondence
I
was
saddened
by
the
decision
of
the
Conference
to
vote
to
proceed
to
expel
NASPO
members
from
NAPO.
Whilst
I
heartily
agree
that
membership
of
both
associations
is
incompatible,
and
I
regard
NASPO
as
a
subversive
organisation
working
against
NAPO,
I
am
convinced
that
the
decision
made
was
impetuous
and
ill-considered
and
thereby
harmful
to
the
Association.
Why
did
we
have
to
take
such
a
destructive
decision
at
this
tithe?
I
know
a
num-
ber
of
SPOs
who
have
not
come
to
grips
with
the
NAPO/NASPO
dilemma.
Given
time,
discussion
and
persuasion
would
have
won
them
back
to
the
fold.
We
have
not
yet
done
this
as
much
as
we
might,
in
East
Anglia
Branch
at
least.
Probation
officers’
do
not
like
being
pushed
around
by
anyone.
That
is
why
many
of
them
accept
long
hours
and
emotional
demands
for
a
good
degree
of
autonomy.
That
is
also
why
NAPO
has
taken
a
trade
union
stance.
Unfortunately,
this
is
also
why
a
number
of
SPOs
peripherally
involved
with
NAPO
will
be
likely
to
move
to
NASPO
and
some
main
grade
officers
will
leave
in
the
face
of
apparently
unfair
bully-boy
tactics
by
our
Association.
This
decision
represents
justice
untempered
by
mercy.
We
had
an
adequate
amendment
that
expressed
our
disapproval
but
did
not
commit
us
to
action
this
year.
Whilst
it
is
no
use
arguing
over
spilt
milk,
I
heartily
wish
it
had
been
accep-
ted.
Owen
Wells
referred
to
it
as
weak:
my
weakness
is
the
same
weakness
that
finds
the
Kent
Control
Unit
so
unacceptable.
Ill-considered
and
precipitate
action
is
strong
it
would
seem.
I
do
not
say
we
should
not
expel
some
NASPO
members
on
principle
but
say
we
should
have
decided
next
year
(if
NASPO
still
exists).
We
do
not
expect
all
offenders
who
have
acted
ill-advisedly
to
immediately
see
the
error
of
their
ways;
is
it
not
possible
to
extend
the
same
charity
to
our
colleagues?
Yours
faithfully,
DAVID
SLEIGHTHOLM
Projects
Officer,
1pswich
To continue reading
Request your trial