'PCSO Watch'
The Office of Community Sousveillance | 09.01.2009 17:51 | Free Spaces | Social Struggles
The Office is interested in playfully and creatively engaging with concerned individuals to interact and comment on government initiatives relating to surveillance, control and policing. The Office of Community Sousveillance will be patrolling hotspots around Nottingham during January 2009.
What is 'PCSO Watch'?
PCSO Watch is inspired by an incident back in October 2007, when Officer Rob O' Copp, the founding member of the Office of Community Sousveillance was fined £30 by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO), for cycling a short distance across the pavement towards a cycle stand in Nottingham City Centre.
The project is led by Officer Rob O'Copp who is inviting other maverick 'Officers' to join him to playfully gather information, data, and stories about PCSOs and their Community Protection Officer (CPO) colleagues. Officers are asking the public for help in contributing their own stories and interactions to add to our online blog.
"PCSO Watch is a playful piece of research, which, I should add for the record, is completely unmotivated by revenge on my part in any way whatsoever." Officer Rob O'Copp
We are looking for members of the public who would like to be interviewed anonymously or wearing a disguise for our video archive. If you are interested in contributing, or for more information please contact:
Officer Rob O'Copp at The Office of Community Sousveillance
email
rob.ocopp@yahoo.co.uk
phone 07530 946082
PCSO Watch is inspired by an incident back in October 2007, when Officer Rob O' Copp, the founding member of the Office of Community Sousveillance was fined £30 by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO), for cycling a short distance across the pavement towards a cycle stand in Nottingham City Centre.
The project is led by Officer Rob O'Copp who is inviting other maverick 'Officers' to join him to playfully gather information, data, and stories about PCSOs and their Community Protection Officer (CPO) colleagues. Officers are asking the public for help in contributing their own stories and interactions to add to our online blog.
"PCSO Watch is a playful piece of research, which, I should add for the record, is completely unmotivated by revenge on my part in any way whatsoever." Officer Rob O'Copp
We are looking for members of the public who would like to be interviewed anonymously or wearing a disguise for our video archive. If you are interested in contributing, or for more information please contact:
Officer Rob O'Copp at The Office of Community Sousveillance
rob.ocopp@yahoo.co.uk phone 07530 946082
The Office of Community Sousveillance
e-mail:
rob.ocopp@yahoo.co.uk
Comments
Hide 5 hidden comments or hide all comments
why?
09.01.2009 22:01
The vast majority of PCSO's in Nottingham do an excellent job, they're the ones out there preventing the drunken idiots ruining life for the rest of us, they're the ones working in the local communities trying to make them just a bit safer and you're trying to undermine that by publishing information about them on the internet?
These aren't riot cops/FIT teams who are interested in your political message or that you might be blocking a Starbucks. These are people who are trying to do a difficult job, with a limited set of tools, to be thanked by people with what must be a massive axe to grind if they're still bitching about a £30 ticket they recieved 18 months ago.
Jesus, if you had a job it would be about 5 hours pay. Get over it.
casual observer
but then again...
10.01.2009 00:55
The shared use of pavement by sensitive cyclists can be appropriate if, like 'steam giving way to sail', those on bikes give full priority to pedestrians.
There are so many benefits to society in general from encouraging bikes rather than cars, that it would be nice to cut some slack for cyclists - on condition that they always give priority to those on foot. After all some cycle paths are quite safely shared with pedestrians.
Un-observer
they know not what they do
10.01.2009 01:05
Can I just comment that I am not in favour of the new announcements at the train station going "this station is patrolled 24 hours a day...". It's just plain rude! And it makes me feel like I'm in some third rate dystopian b-movie.
Just so long as it does'nt get like Sheffield station where it's EVERY FIVE MINUTES!(approx.)
And while I'm ranting, what about the TV screens on the bus? It's one thing videoing us, but why make us watch it too? Couldn't we have some David Attenborough instead? On the plus side, it's got me on my bike a lot more.
Our loving government should consider what psychological impact all this rubbish may have on us. And then PACK IT IN! Thanks for your time xxx
tiddlemouse
What a waste of council tax.....
10.01.2009 10:00
So next time you see one you can hum this tune....
for an earlier story see.....
Mike Hunt
un-observer
10.01.2009 10:05
I really doubt the original poster was one of the sensible ones, I expect he is not letting on the full story, that in reality he was riding like an idiot and he's just pissed off (STILL!) because he got caught.
Yes, some PCSO's and community PC's and definitely the CPO's will be over-zealous. But the majority are doing the job to make Nottingham a better place for everyone else. The community officers are the ones doing the job because the idea of riding around in a fast car nicking people isn't one that appeals. You should be thankful the ones we've got in Nottingham at least have some brains, and useful powers. You could always be in the Met.
Casual observer
Against this society of conformity
10.01.2009 16:38
And let's not forget the cameras that also need to be taken care of.
Cop watcher
PCSO's V CPO's?
10.01.2009 23:32
Martin Fairbourne
Professionalism, Fairness and Satisfaction.
10.01.2009 23:39
Julie H
PiSCOff
11.01.2009 13:34
fly Poster
CPOs vs PCSOs
11.01.2009 16:44
The major differences between the PCSO's and CPOs are that PCSO's are allowed to:
Issued police penalty notices for public order offences, confiscate alcohol, seize untaxed vehicles, disperse people in certain areas, and they are also allowed to detain someone using force if necessary.
A CPO is not allowed to do any of the above. Whilst it would be an offence to walk away from a CPO who has requested your name and address, they are not allowed to physically stop you from doing so, PCSO's in Nottingham can.
As for why CPO's look like police officers, i've been told it's because the head of neighbourhood protection services wanted to make them look that way, although all it did was make everyone confused. The biggest visual difference between a PCSO and CPO are, a PCSO will have a blue/white checked hat band and a notts police crest, and far fewer pointless little pouches. They also don't carry maglites during the day....
To PisCOff, you perhaps need to grow up a bit, if you're too scared to be on the road maybe you need to get some training wheels before you're ready to join the rest of us.
Casual observer
Mmmm - Police state, or Chav state, what a choice.
11.01.2009 23:25
Perhaps you could extend the idea of sousveillance (to the - actual, existing - underclass)? Ordinary members of the public could be penalised for not wearing track-suits or spring loaded nike trainers. Children could be required to breath in smoke from other people's skunk and punished if they do not show the required appreciation. There could be public demonstrations of the skills required to play the 'who the fuck are you lookin' at?' game - competence at which being such a necessary social skill in many places . Mmmm - Police state, or Chav state, what a choice
M Reed
well said
12.01.2009 07:18
People on Indymedia always tend to think that ALL police want to do is ride around in a van wearing helmets and beating up protestors. That is not the case.
Some people on Indymedia think we could live without the police in an anarchist state, where people can do whatever the fuck they want without any conscequences. I enjoy living in a civilised society where I know that if the shit hits the fan, all I need to do is pick up the phone and dial 999. It might not be perfect all of the time, but it's there. People like PCSO's and community PC's aren't in the job for the glory, or the thrills. They do the job because they want to make the place safer for the rest of us, and I'd love to see any of their critics do a better job, because from where I'm sitting I can easily imagine them trying to reason with some underclass scumbag that they're being put down by the bourgeaoise masters, and then getting their head kicked in by a bloke with a Rottweiler.
Casual observer
Why say who you are?
12.01.2009 15:55
I can't accept that riding between the road and a bicycle park is any kind of 'offence'. Cars drive accross the pavement every time someone puts their car in the garrage.
But I am opposed to adults generally riding on the pavements. They should have the skill and self confidence to assert their equal priority to other trafic on the carrageway.
Twiggs
Twiggs
12.01.2009 16:36
I suspect there is more to the OP's story than he was simply crossing over from the road to the cycle park or he wouldn't have been given a ticket.
Casual Observer
Why not run off?
12.01.2009 17:39
To answer your question.... if a person makes off while under a requirement to wait that person is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine of up to £1,000 if they
• fail to comply with the requirement to wait for a police officer to attend
• make off while subject to such a requirement, or make off while accompanying the PCSO to a police station.
PC Dixon
PCSO's cycling on the pavement in Nottingham
12.01.2009 17:51
On this particular day I was strolling down Mansfield Rd in Sherwood, a couple of these 'pseudo-cops' were cycling up Mansfield Road, only on the pavement. I only knew who they were when they had passed as the label 'Police Community Support Officer' was on their backs.
So they were cycling along chatting to each other. Fair do's, it's a wide pavement, but there had been this whole thing arresting cyclists down near the station. So I started to say to these guys, 'you are not allowed to do that'. Anyway they just ignored me. I got hold of the guy who was nearest to me, by his forearm (I didn't drag him off, or anything like that) just grabbed him sufficiently to swing his wheel towards the left and therefore unbalance him. At which point the other pseudo-cop came peddling round I said, 'Do you know you are not allowed to cycle on here? This is a pavement'. At which point there was the reaction along the lines of 'who the hell do you think you are telling us what our job is?' (although they didnt say this). I just jumped in and said hang on, I'm a qualified cycling instructor etc, etc.. I think essentially they rode away with their tail between their legs, but at least they tried to ride on the road. They tried cycling away up Mansfield Road double-breasted, possibly one of the busiest roads in Nottingham, so they didn't even know how to ride on the road.
The irony of all this is that immediately after training to be a cycling instructor I actually ran a organisation that gave free cycling lessons paid for by the city council. We went down to the police and offered to give cycling instruction up to Level Three to these jokers, but they'd refused. The reaction was 'anybody can ride a bike'.
I don't have a problem with community policing. I have quite a lot of problems with these amateurs. When the police started to appear on the streets you could feel a tangible relaxation of people in the community (I'd lived there for over thirty years) - you could feel the difference. When we got the pseudo-cops it was neither one thing nor the other. My problem with them is mainly that they are under-trained, under-skilled and under-resourced. It's a kind of tolkenistic thing which might work, but doesn't seem to have so far.
Officer De Railleur
Casual observer = Notts City Council employee
12.01.2009 21:12
I wonder whose payroll you're on?
Cop Watcher
Officer O'Copp at your service
12.01.2009 21:15
What it did do was set me thinking about what had happened and the forces which had been put in place in order for it to happen; not least why did I have to cycle across the pavement to a cycle stand (the answer of course being that there was no cycle lane) and why was I being fined for it (a lack of discretion on the part of a poorly-trained officer and/or some easy money a la parking tickets) and what say I had been able to have in those forces being put in place (none).
The point of PCSO Watch, and any other activity of the Office of Community Sousveillance is not to bicker about whether it is or isn't right to cycle on pavements, or indeed to stop people cycling on pavements. The point is to open up a channel of communication upwards rather than downwards about an increasingly out-of-control area of our society, and to create a space where people can make their feelings known.
Sure, some PCSOs do a good job, sure lots of people are happy with them, just as sure that many more people are not, and that those who are not are more likely to be the ones who do not have a public voice. So, come forward, and have your say, is all Im proposing, surely there's nothing to make anyone angry in that?
I am just an everyday citizen, concerned that what goes on in the name of 'community' is answerable to the 'community' it purports to serve.
Yours
Officer O'Copp
Rob O'Copp
e-mail:
rob.ocopp@yahoo.co.uk
copwatcher
13.01.2009 06:31
Some PCSOs, some CPOs and some police officers are total idiots, and I'd be the first to point that out, but most are not. I'm simply trying to give an alternative viewpoint to the "bash the police because they represent authority" point of view, which most people on here have. People are bashing PCSO's based on what they have read in the papers.
The real examples posted here have highlighted that out of over 100 PCSOs in Notts, 1 of them issued a ticket that he was lawfully allowed to, but probably wasn't worth it. 2 of them were riding their bike on the pavement like idiots, but unsurprisingly weren't happy when a poster nearly made one of them fall off their bike, and 1 PCSO who was sworn at because he saw someone riding their bike on a pavement.
observer
To Casual observer (PSCO)
13.01.2009 17:30
Not to scared to be on the road, just rational and logical. It is safer and more enjoyable for me to be on the pavement on that stretch, It is a wide path, and and I can see pedestrians coming from a way off, so am able to slow up if need be. basically I'll keep doing the same untill the council put in a cycle path. If that makes me childish, then it's a badge I wear with pride!
BTW Casual observer (PSCO)
thought you might like this:
PisCOff
Why not bash figures of authority?
13.01.2009 18:12
"The real examples posted here have highlighted that out of over 100 PCSOs in Notts, 1 of them issued a ticket that he was lawfully allowed to..."
Don't forget this example:
And don't forget that these are examples - not a thorough audit. Maybe once this project gets underway we'll get a better picture. Surely not even you can object to that?
Cop Watcher
Couldn't be bothered to write casual
13.01.2009 20:24
Pre-judging people is something you guys are normally dead against, it's certainly not ok when people make asumptions based on race and religion, despite previous experiences. But all of a sudden it's ok because that person is wearing a uniform?
Cop watcher, that was a neighbourhood warden, not a PCSO.
As for the video of PCSO's on the pavement, then fine, you got me. Those 3 are idiots.
Casual observer
Ruining a system that works really well.
13.01.2009 23:22
What we did in early December, we had the bottom of a bed which we couldn’t get up the stairs, so therefore we left it out on the street. Within a couple of hours there was a knock on the door, before we opened the door there was a note put through saying we couldn’t do that.
We opened the door and there were two Community Officers saying we had to put the bed inside, it wasn’t allowed, and that we would be fined I think £100 if we didn’t do so. They said there is a phone number on a card and you can ring that if you are not happy with the decision. So we had to take the bed back in. That’s never happened before the Community Officers got here. We have always been able to leave things out. If it’s a big item and no one picks it up in the day you take it back in overnight and put it back out in the morning. But usually things are gone within twenty four hours at the most.
I suppose the warning that you will get a hefty fine, is I think, enough for a lot of people to take things back in. I still see a lot of things out on the streets even now, people are adamant, they still think its a good idea. It would be nice if the Community Officers could accept, and say thats OK as long as it’s stacked neatly against the wall. But they seem to be on a mission to clean the streets up, even though this is a system that works really well. I know loads of people who pick up a lot of furniture that way rather than having to buy new things. There seems to be an ideology that we might as well reuse rather than consume.
I’ve not had any kind of runnings, or any help from them in anyway. I have only been told I will get fined for doing something that I have done for a long time.
I would imagine older people might appreciate them walking about on the street and I’ve been told that some of them are very passionate about what they are doing and see themselves as a helping link between the neighbourhood and the police. But I haven’t actually experienced that myself. You know they should talk to the neighbourhood and say is this something you do, and ask is this something you find valuable to you? I’d think they’d find most people would say the free-cycle system is a really good idea and it works really well. Maybe they should not go so by-the-book on everything that they do?
We live in a consumer society and most people seem to think you should throw things out on the landfill rather than recycle it. It seems to be quite a unique thing around here and in Radford and Lenton. It seems to be they follow the book and go, ‘oh you can’t do that, that’s illegal’. They are ruining a system that works really well. They probably do good things as well but it seems to me that there is no communication if they should be fining us for doing this rather than understanding why we are doing it.
Ms Freecycle
Now that's what I call real 'Community Support'
14.01.2009 00:04
Jo
Pre-judged response
14.01.2009 20:31
"you guys" - who would that be then? Sounds like a pre-judged category to me. You've also previously written:
"I'm simply trying to give an alternative viewpoint to the "bash the police because they represent authority" point of view, which most people on here have." Again, you seem to be judging people by the websites they comment on.
You seem a bit confused about the difference between being prejudiced about someone because of their skin colour and because of the uniform they are wearing. A person's skin colour says absolutely nothing about their behaviour whereas a person's uniform says a lot about it. People like myself are opposed to people who wear a cop's uniform (or something very similar) because it means they are employed to impose a law on me and others that I have had no say in deciding. They carry out an oppressive and statist function. I am not judging the person underneath the uniform, merely the function that that uniform signifies.
In addition to all of the examples mentioned above (and it really doesn't bother me whether the uniform is of a neighbourhood warden, PCSO, police or CPO - they simply represent different degrees of the same repressive apparatus), I've thought of a few more examples I've seen recently. Uniformed people harassing beggars who were doing nothing more than quietly asking for change as they attempted to bed down for the night. Uniformed people harassing street traders in town for being in the wrong spot. Uniformed people moving on kids who had the temerity to muck around on the steps of the council house.
If these people are really there to benefit the community, why are there so many concentrated in the commercial town centre compared with the residential areas where people actually live? Probably because their mandate has more to do with protecting commerce than protecting people. They are here to enforce the will of their capitalist masters.
Cop Watcher
you guys
14.01.2009 21:17
You say you dislike them because they impose laws on you that you did not pick, laws that have been developed over hundreds of years to help protect people like you.
Without the oppresive tools of the state, what would you do if someone attacked you and stole your posessions? What would you do if someone killed a family member, or broke into your home.
What about the uniformed state oppressors who rescue abused children and trafficked women? The nazi gestapo who arrive at traffic accidents and have the sheer nerve to prosecute someone because they were driving drunk and killed someone.
No, forget all the good work the Police might be doing, it's irrelevant because they've dared to tell you to do something, you didn't agree with.
casual observer
No grounds of reasonable suspicion
14.01.2009 23:32
So they stopped me and asked me about the records. I pointed out that secondhand records aren't the first things that a thief in Mapperley Park is going to be stealing from a house. So why were they stopping and asking me for my name and address and asking where had I got them from? They asked me for my name and address which I refused to give and I asked them which law gave them the right to ask me for this. After some confusion they came up with Section 60 which is what the police and use (if given by a judge I think) for an area to stop and search people for weapons and if somebody is concealing their identity they could ask to remove covering around the face. It’s a police power not a PCSO power, they’d got it wrong basically. There’s a 2002 act that covers all the powers that PCSO’s can use, which is a different act entirely.
So they stopped me, asked me for my name and address, which I refused and they said they were going to detain me until the police came because I was refusing to give my name and address. It is within their powers in Nottingham to do that. I’d imagine they’d have to have reasonable suspicion to do that, a bunch of secondhand records that obviously haven't been stolen from a house by somebody whose story obviously collates with what they are saying because they are covered in mud because they’ve been working on a garden doesn’t really give them reason to demand my name and address. So I said lets go up to the guys house where I have been working and he can correlate my story, which we did. They came with me, and the guy correlated my story told them I’d been working there said he’d given me the records. Afterwards they still demanded my name and address which was way beyond their powers and duty to do so. I hadn’t broken into a house in Mapperley Park. I hadn’t committed a crime.
They went way beyond what their powers should be in that case. So I still refused and they said they were going to detain me and keep me there until the police came. On what grounds! They didn’t have any grounds. Why did they? Perhaps they were on a power trip, just the fact that somebody had denied them? Maybe because I didn’t want to give them my details? I thought it was an intrusion of my civil liberties. Maybe they thought I was hiding something? Or I had a criminal record? Maybe they thought I was wanted by the police? Even so, they’d questioned me about me being a potential criminal and it was obvious that I was not, then why should they have carried on with the line of questioning? That’s what really annoyed me.
But I was looking after this dog at the time, when they said they were going to detain me until the police came. So I had to give in and give my name and address, I’d have been leaving the dog home alone and I could have been detained for anything up to 8 hours so I did give them my name and address in the end. Simply because I didn’t know if I could get someone to go and look after the dog.
I put in a complaint afterwards which was in part upheld. The complaints department said they agreed they were being over zealous after I’d proved to them that the owner of the house where I’d been working at had given me the records and I had been working there.
Landscape gardener
to Casual copper
15.01.2009 20:57
No, forget all the good work the Police might be doing, it's irrelevant because they've dared to tell you to do something, you didn't agree with.
"I say "you guys" because it really is you guys. The vast majority of people on here have a slanted, pre-judged view about people in authority, not all but most. Prejudice is nothing to do with skin colour, and everything to do with judging a person based on your opinions, regardless of who they are and what they do."
-Yes, it really is us guys! you presumably mean people who think the amount of surveilance there is is over the top, and the erosion of civil liberties is a bad thing, and poorly trained people acting out the role of police is a bad idea. And who belive that democracy involves having a say. To use the term "you guys in that context makes us a very large chunk of the population, not a small one like you would like to think.
"You say you dislike them because they impose laws on you that you did not pick, laws that have been developed over hundreds of years to help protect people like you."
-The majority of mordern day policing is geared towards protecting corporations. I'll give you a very easy example for this, where I live is not a particularly wealthy area, I have had 2 attempted break-ins at my house and I have been mugged once. the police response times for each occasion were between 45 minutes, to an hour and a half. In the city centre there is a much higher concerntration of police/wardens/PSCO's and CCTV, to match the much higher concerntration of of big business shops. It's not about protecting me the citizen it's about protecting or at least providing a safe enviroment for me the consumer, so that I may spend.
It doesn't matter over how many years these laws have been developed, they are not and have never been wriiten to protect me, but have been designed to protect something else, and as a previous poster mentioned, we have no say in this process.
"Without the oppresive tools of the state, what would you do if someone attacked you and stole your posessions? What would you do if someone killed a family member, or broke into your home."
-Communities have existed, and still exist without these problems on the scale that we have them. Guess what? they don't have Coppers or PSCO's either.
"What about the uniformed state oppressors who rescue abused children and trafficked women? The nazi gestapo who arrive at traffic accidents and have the sheer nerve to prosecute someone because they were driving drunk and killed someone."
- Actually while there have been a few high profile cases of busts by the police happening as reported by mainstream media. Trafficking of women, and child abuse still happens, and if anything is getting worse. Also the majority of cases brought to attention are not done by "uniformed state oppressors" but by savvy support workers who don't even work for the government, It all comes back to the fact that this is not a priority for the police.
"The nazi gestapo who arrive at traffic accidents and have the sheer nerve to prosecute someone because they were driving drunk and killed someone."
Personally, I don't know what a prosecution in cases like this seeks to achieve. I once met someone when I worked as as a support worker who had had several failed suicide attempts, and was living in perpetual guilt because he had killed someone driving whilst drunk. The time he spent in prison was not an issue for him, the pain inside at what he had done was. It was in prison that he met lot's of people who introduced him to the idea of heroin when he came out of prison.
what I am trying to say is: putting that much into getting prosections is not preventative, costs shit loads, and can cause more problems in the long run.
One of the "guys"
The state serves itself and no one else
16.01.2009 12:04
"You say you dislike them because they impose laws on you that you did not pick, laws that have been developed over hundreds of years to help protect people like you."
This is the most shallow reading of history I've seen in a long time. The law is developed by who, exactly? The rich and powerful. Do they do it out of the kindness of their hearts because they have altruistic intentions to help everyone? No, they didn't get to be more rich and powerful than everyone else by doing that. They pass laws that suit themselves and people like them. I am not like them. Their laws do not protect me - they legislate against me.
"Without the oppresive tools of the state, what would you do if someone attacked you and stole your posessions? What would you do if someone killed a family member, or broke into your home."
I would try to work with my community to resolve the situations. What are we supposed to do with the oppressive tools of the state? Get sent down? (revenge) Get some compensation? Those aren't going to stop you getting attacked, bring back your possessions or your family members. The most sensible thing to do is to try to create a society in which people do not feel the need to do such things in the first place. Under capitalism where there is massive inequality, dispossession and alienation people are going to commit horrible crimes because they are so fucked over and fucked up. Lets tear down that system and create more equal and connected communities.
"What about the uniformed state oppressors who rescue abused children and trafficked women? The nazi gestapo who arrive at traffic accidents and have the sheer nerve to prosecute someone because they were driving drunk and killed someone."
I have news for you, casual copper. The police abuse children and trafficked women too, and they are more likely to get away with it. Prostitution is illegal and trafficked women are often illegal immigrants. The police are more likely to lock them up and deport them than support them. I agree that there are very useful and courageous uniformed people that help at traffic accidents. They are called paramedics.
I have some examples of my own now:
What about the pigs who cracked the head of a 78-year old peace protestor (along with many, many others) in London on Saturday? What about the pigs who crushed those same people in protest pens? What about the pigs who carried out the disgraceful abuse at the Diaz school in Genoa? What about the pigs responsible for the thousands of deaths of black people in custody? What about the pigs who spend their entire working lives doing whatever it takes to uphold the statist capitalist system that destroys so many peoples lives and environment?
And, casual copper, what do you make of my examples of PCSO behaviour - harassing of the homeless and street traders? What do you make of the examples of Forest Fields residents who were penalised for recycling furniture? What do you make of the example of a gardener abused by a pseudo copper on a power trip?
And how do you explain why there are so many of them in the town centre protecting the temples of capitalism when the law is designed to "protect people"?
Cop Watcher
LMAO@ your naivety
16.01.2009 21:43
How naive are you people? You think someone feeling a bit guilty because they were stupid enough to drink and drive in the first place and were surprised when they killed someone deserves sympathy?
Picture this. Your house has been broken into, the scumbag who does it pisses and shits all over your belongings and then rapes your daughter/wife. In your ideal utopian world you'd all sit down around a coffee table and discuss how this poor person must have been feeling to commit such an awful crime. Then you all have a cuddle and tell him not to worry, because nothing you could do would bring your belongings back or make your loved one feel whole again, and you'd do exactly the same thing if he did it to someone else.
You're walking home from wherever and a drink driver who has already been disqualified from driving for a previous offence plows into you crippling you from the waist down. Wait, there's no police around and you wouldn't feel right about prosecuting him anyway. I know, let's let him go, AGAIN so he can have another try and killing someone.
I'm not going to argue that some laws are there to protect business, but these ones are not:
Burglary
Criminal Damage
Any sexual offence
Any public order offence
Littering
Moving traffic offences
e.t.c. e.t.c.
How does a law making it illegal to rape you benefit big business exactly? How does making it illegal from driving through a red light, preventing you from killing the poor sod crossing at that exact point make life easier for corporate UK?
You think that you can see the best in people, that everyone who commits a crime is just misunderstood. That in your Utopia they can be given a cookie, and it suggested that perhaps stealing isn't a good idea because it isn't nice, but don't worry if you do it again, because we'll just repeat ourselves.
Newsflash. People don't commit crime because they're rebelling against Capitalism. Sick bastards don't kill their children or glass people in bars, or urinate through peoples' letter boxes because they're disgruntled at the system. They do it because they are shit heads. A society the size of ours won't work without people around to keep order. It might work for the small tribes in the Amazon, but then I get the impression of one them stepped out of line the head of the tribe would cut their balls off, so really you haven't made a point at all.
Even the Pitcairn islands needed a police officer because they kept abusing their children, and there's only about 50 people there.
lol
Incident report (ref 230)
16.01.2009 22:04
LOCATION - PCSO WATCH mobile unit parked legally (with permission) on private land at the edge of Sneinton Market. Officer B was staffing the mobile unit.
Statement by Officer B.
The two Community Protection Officers ( CPO’s) came onto the private land where our mobile unit was parked. They asked if I had a permit. I said we had full permission to be parked here. I then asked if I could take a photo for our project. Officer CPO 9949 said 'No', and proceeded to phone someone to check if we had permission to be here. I went inside the mobile unit and tried to take a picture from the window. Unfortunately my camera battery died and the officer saw me. He became quite angry and demanded that I give my details. He said he could arrest me for taking a photo of him without permission!
I told him I wouldn’t give my details. I did not have to.
He then proceeded to radio through to his superiors. I asked the younger officer what was happening and he had a friendly chat with me explaining that his colleague was “ascertaining the situation”. This went on for a good twenty minutes after which the older officer came to me and said we had permission to stay here until 17.00.
He then wanted to take a name as he said if we are filming and photographing a CPO we need permission. Again I refused and explained our project to him. I suggested he came back to talk to my superiors when they returned. He told me we should remove the sticker as the mobile unit “might get torched”, if people thought it was actually a PCSO van. I thanked him for his advice and encouraged him to visit the R8R festival gallery across the road. He said he would come back at 16.00 to get the others names.
PCSO Watch
Incident report (ref 232)
16.01.2009 22:15
PCSO Officers watch CPO's
CPO 9949 claims that our logo is a health and safety risk
CPO 9949 "Im not going to show you, but I do have incident report sheets here"
CPO 9949"If I come under attack all I have to do is hit my orange button. "
LOCATION
Outside the PCSO WATCH mobile unit parked (with permission) on private land at the edge of Sneinton Market.
Knock on the PCSO WATCH door..... there are 2 CPO’s.
They are the same officers who came to the mobile unit at 15.15-15.45 when it was staffed by Officer B. (see separate incident report above).
They also had visited the Surface Gallery and spoke to a member of staff. In addition they had ten minutes earlier observed PCSO WATCH officers observing them at about 16.20.

CPO 9949 speaks, the other wanders off and waits from a distance.
______________________________________________________
CPO 9949 - First of all mate. Just a bit of concern regarding this PCSO sign mate. What it is, people will think it (the caravan) is full of PCSO’s
OFFICER ROB O COPP - People will think what?
CPO 9949- People could think you have got PCSO’s in here watching in the area and you could end up getting severely hurt. All right. Mate, you wear a yellow jacket the same as us.

OFFICER ROB O COPP - People are laughing.
CPO 9949 - Young lads in this area will see the sign saying PCSO they will be more than happy to chuck a brick through your window.
OFFICER ROB O COPP - Well, most of them have been laughing. People have found it quite funny.
CPO 9949 - So....You doing it for R8R (festival) are you?
OFFICER TAGS -Is there something that we are doing that is against the law?
CPO 9949- No not at all, not but my beat manager would like a contact name and telephone number thats all.
OFFICER TAGS - For what reason?
CPO 9949- Cause I’ve had, we’ve had, complaints come in, about you guys being here.
OFFICER TAGS - Complaints?
CPO - Yes.
OFFICER ROB O COPP - Of what nature?
CPO - I’m not prepared to say their names and Im not prepared to say who from.
OFFICER ROB O COPP - We don’t need names. What sort of complaint? It’s private land.
CPO 9949 - All I can say is ....
(Starts to open his inner jacket pocket)
CPO 9949 - ....... and Im not going to show you. I do have incident report sheets, here....
(he pulls a piece of paper from his pocket just halfway, and pushes it back in again) .... about you guys with a caravan and the car being on it.

OFFICER ROB O COPP - OK
CPO 9949 - And with this sign being on here as well.
OFFICER TAGS - So you are basically saying you don’t like our sign.
CPO 9949 - No. It is a concern for safety.
OFFICER TAGS - Well should we warn you about your safety wearing a jacket and being on the streets?
CPO 9949 - The difference is I wear Kevlar body armour.
OFFICER TAGS - But you haven’t got any handcuffs have you?
CPO 9949 - No.
OFFICER TAGS - Have you got a truncheon or anything?
CPO - No. No.
OFFICER TAGS - Are you not concerned for your safety?
CPO 9949 - No
OFFICER TAGS - Why not?
CPO 9949 - All I have to do .... If I come under attack all I have to do is hit my orange button.
(he points to a button on his radio)

Then I’ve got police officers coming straight to my aid.
OFFICER TAGS - Well if we have a problem then we can phone the police as well. So we’ll do that. We have got the same protection as you haven’t we?
CPO 9949 - Well that’s fine. Yes.
CPO 9949 - What I wanted to say was just mainly that. That was all. That was our concern, and obviously your health and safety being in mind obviously.
PCSO WATCH
Sigh
16.01.2009 22:40
Er, yes. How else could they justify their wealth without property law?
"If we didn't live in a decadent capitalist society everything would be fine and we'd all be nice? Don't punish people, let communities sort it out themselves?"
I didn't say those things (and you added the decadent label, not me). I think things would be better without capitalism, not perfect. And I never said there shouldn't be punishment - simply that the affected communities should decide on it.
"Picture this. Your house has been broken into, the scumbag who does it pisses and shits all over your belongings and then rapes your daughter/wife..."
Seems pretty unlikely and extreme. And the daughter/wife example reveals that you're sexist as well as generally reactionary.
"In your ideal utopian world you'd all sit down around a coffee table and discuss how this poor person must have been feeling to commit such an awful crime."
In your fantasy, made-up world you mean.
"Then you all have a cuddle and tell him not to worry, because nothing you could do would bring your belongings back or make your loved one feel whole again, and you'd do exactly the same thing if he did it to someone else."
I never said that. I just don't think the state taking revenge motivated punishment into its own hands is a particularly good way of dealing with these eventualities.
"How does a law making it illegal to rape you benefit big business exactly? How does making it illegal from driving through a red light, preventing you from killing the poor sod crossing at that exact point make life easier for corporate UK?"
Laws benefit the state as well as the wealthy. By taking what was once a community affair (the meting out of justice) under its control the state was able to further solidify its position.
It is also worth looking at which laws are actively pursued and enforced as well. Rape is a good example. The rape conviction rate is apalling and many women complain that the police do not take them seriously. I have heard of many people in my (working class) area complain about how long it takes the police to respond to burglary calls. I don't suppose the same can be said about cases involving the rich and influential.
"You think that you can see the best in people, that everyone who commits a crime is just misunderstood."
Er, no I don't actually. But I think the conditions in which we live in modern society make crime a much greater problem than they could be.
And, by the way, punishment as a way of deterrence has been shown time and time again to be ineffective so the evidence is stacked against the "lock em up and throw away the key" school. If society has fucked someone up, fucking them up further doesn't tend to make them a better person. But I suppose you're too busy lauging your arse up to think for yourself.
Cop Watcher
umkay
17.01.2009 12:51
"Er, yes. How else could they justify their wealth without property law?"
Since when does a law designed to protect property solely benefit that of the rich and powerful? You moan that people often have to wait over an hour for the police to arrive when they have been burgled, yet you openly state that there is too much state control. Which is it to be? Enough police so that they can arrive at your house within minutes (not really much point though if the offender is long gone) or no police at all so nobody turns up?
"Seems pretty unlikely and extreme. And the daughter/wife example reveals that you're sexist as well as generally reactionary"
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot you know for a fact that criminals treat people and property with the utmost respect and wouldn't dream of shooting someone who is protecting their property, or perhaps killing their dog that is barking at them. (Perhaps if you read the mainstream media you'd know these things do actually happen....)
And I'm also sorry I offended your sensibilities by suggesting only your wife and/or daughter could be the potential target, I forgot that men are sexually assaulted just as often.
"I never said that. I just don't think the state taking revenge motivated punishment into its own hands is a particularly good way of dealing with these eventualities."
It is however an excellent way of making sure that the criminal is not in a position to commit more crime.
So as a hypothetical example then. You return home and find it has been ransacked. Everything of value that you have worked for (I assume you work) has been taken.
In your ideal world there won't be any police and certainly no forensic science teams so you really have no way of finding out who did it.
But let's assume somehow you do know who did it. They live in the next town over, they are bigger and stronger than you and their neighbours have all said they'll defend them because they think they are innocent.
There aren't any police around, so how would you go about apprehending them.....? I assume you'd want your stuff back, or at the least your door repairing.
Then we assume you do apprehend them. You put them on trial in your little village square and you as self appointed leader of this little kollective find them guilty. It also emerges said arsehole is responsible for the savage glassing of your best friend's brother in the local pub. Your best friend and his brother are both upset and they decide that the best way to punish them would be to return the favour. There aren't any courts, or police and no prisons to keep the offender in and no way of stopping your best friend from punishing the offender, so this offender has his face shredded with a beer glass. The will of the victims has been carried out and everyone is happy...except you I'd imagine.
The offender's village find out about what you've done and decide to exact revenge,
e.t.c. e.t.c. e.t.c.
Now I've never said anything about punishment being used as revenge, you're making an awful lot of assumptions. I'm of the opinion that prison for violent and repeat offenders is the best way of preventing other innocent people becoming victims.
In your ideal society, even if you did come up with your own laws, you'd have no way of investigating them, no way of enforcing them and no way of getting justice. Unless you appoint people to do it for you.
And as a side note, I'd love to know how a law stopping people from jumping red lights or driving drunk, or assaulting you protects the interests of the state? Or are you going to come up with some bollocks about the state needing as many workers as possible to make a profit, e.t.c.
You make an awful lot of assumptions on the nature of people and how they react when they become victims. The vast majority react with anger and want a desire for justice in whatever form. You also make a lot of assumptions about criminals, that they'd just tow the line if you decided to punish them in the community out of some sense of Communist brotherhood.
You perhaps need to return to the real world. Capitalism is what we've got and what we will always have. It's a system that has existed since people knew how to trade things with each other and decided that paying someone who is better at making something or doing something the same as someone who can't do shit isn't fair. People always want something either a nice feeling inside that they've made a difference, or some money so they can buy food.
CO
To Rob O Copp
17.01.2009 13:27
Or is it going to be one sided.
wondering
Reporting from Hyson Green
18.01.2009 10:52
"I'm disabled, Ive had both knees relaced. One operation was 3 years ago, the other just 6 months ago. I'm still waiting for operations for replacement elbows and shoulders. I can walk, but you can see its painful and with a lot of difficulty. I don't want to use a wheelchair or a mobility buggy. I want to keep as mobile as I can. One thing I can still do is ride a bike. I use the bike as a mobility aid. I can also lean on it when I walk. I live around here and Gregory Boulevard is really dangerous. I just dont feel safe riding in the road.I need to be on the pavement.
My problem with the officers is that I get singled out for riding my bike on the pavement. I keep getting harassed. Harassment is the right word as its been one particular officer who forces me to go on the road when he sees me. I've told him my problem and I have even pulled up my trousers to show him my scars. His response is along the line of " it could be from a cut or something". I have now got a city council mobility pass with my photo on so I can use the tram and bus. I carry that with me all the time. I know if I was in a mobility buggy on the pavement I would not be hassled. I don't know what to do about this. The last time it happened I took the officers name. I have got it at home.
I understand they are doing their job and they serve a purpose but its not helping me."
Rob O'Copp
feedback
18.01.2009 11:20
The Office is not interested in presenting a 'one-sided' picture of what is happening in our communities, but neither is it willing to present evidence which has not been willingly offered. Our mission statement, as laid out in an earlier post has been 'to open up a channel of communication upwards rather than downwards about an increasingly out-of-control area of our society, and to create a space where people can make their feelings known', and, for better or for worse, those who have come forward are those who have been on the receiving end of bad practice.
In the spirit of impartial research, and in the absence of stories about the good work of PCSOs and CPOs coming from the public, we have sought points of view and stories about their work from PCSOs and CPOs themselves, but these attempts have on every occasion been met with outright hostility, and on one occasion a threat of arrest, a threat the officer concerned had no power whatsoever to carry out. Bear in mind, these people have been approached and had the project explained to them in the same way as how we have explained to every other person we have received statements from.
I hope this answers your question. If you, or anyone else on this forum, have good stories you wish to input, please feel free to do so, we would like to hear them.
Officer O'Copp
Rob O'Copp
e-mail:
rob.ocopp@yahoo.co.uk
re last post, disabled chap
18.01.2009 11:20
I doubt however that he would give you express permission to actually ride on the pavement, in doing so he'd be breaking the law himself and setting a precedent. All it would take would be for someone to get hurt and blame it on him and how he'd given someone else permission to do so.
I have to point out that when I'm out and about I do get a large number of complaints about people riding on the pavement so there is a place for fining persistent offenders, although I do act with a bit more tact when dealing with people. In 6 years of PCSO ing I haven't issued a ticket for it and I doubt I ever will, neither have any of my colleagues. It's the actions of the few that taint the actions of the many, and it does annoy me when people all over concentrate on the negative aspects of the role rather than the positive.
Super Hans
FYI
19.01.2009 19:35
Issued police penalty notices for public order offences, confiscate alcohol, seize untaxed vehicles, disperse people in certain areas, and they are also allowed to detain someone using force if necessary.
A CPO is not allowed to do any of the above. Whilst it would be an offence to walk away from a CPO who has requested your name and address, they are not allowed to physically stop you from doing so, PCSO's in Nottingham can.
Just to let you know that CPO's can Issue PND's for public disorder, can confiscate alcohol, and arrange for untaxed vehicles to be removed, and many other neferious things.
Robert Greenman
HOME OFFICE PROPAGANDA FAILS TO REVEAL ITSELF FULLY
03.02.2009 13:01
26-Jan-09
Ofcom has found Beat: Life on the Street, the Government funded programme (AFP), in breach of its code of conduct for not making its sponsorship arrangement clear.
The show, which was sponsored by the Home Office, showed police community support officers (PCSOs) in an "overwhelmingly" positive light and made little reference to the fact that the show was sponsored by the Home Office.
Two viewers complained that the show, which was broadcast on ITV1 in 2006 and a second series in January 2008, was government propaganda and the Home Office's relationship with the series should have been made clearer.
The complaints followed reports last August suggesting the Home Office supported the show with £800,000 of funding and officials were involved with the editing of the show.
In its adjudication, the watchdog says: "Ofcom judged that overall the series portrayed the PCSOs and the contribution they made to communities in a positive light... serving officers talked in detail about why they enjoyed their role and there were a number of narrated statements that described the PCSO service in positive terms."
It adds the Home Office's sponsorship was only in the credits and "was not made transparent since the size of its text and the brevity of the Home Office's logo's appearance on screen meant it was likely to have been missed by viewers."
Government AFPs have proved controversial, as they appear indistinguishable from regular shows. Last August, it was revealed that the Government has spent almost £2m on AFPs. In September, Sky handed back £400,000 of funding to the Home Office to ensure that documentary series, UK Border Force, was "wholly independent".
OFFICER 2HATS
Hide 5 hidden comments or hide all comments