'PCSO Watch'

Why bother? Why didn't you just walk? That way you wouldn't have risked the safety of people who were using the pavement for what it was intended, which if you did this in the city centre would have been packed full of people pissed off at idiots riding around on bikes.

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.

... I didn't observe the incident in question, but perhaps the illicit cycling was appropriate to the intent to access the cycle stand.

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.

ha ha book 'em robbo...

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

You have to understand that these pound shop peelers have an important job to do making sure that people can spend spend spend in City chain stores without hindrance and the front of the council house is tidy of litter and scruffs so our glorious leaders do not have to look at them.

So next time you see one you can hum this tune....

 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PCXHbCYvzjI

for an earlier story see.....


 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2007/03/364864.html

I'm not saying you're wrong, but generally community officers of all sorts (not the wardens, but PC's and PCSO's) tend to use quite a bit of discretion when it comes to issuing tickets. If people could ride on the pavements sensibly, without knocking people over or causing disruption then I doubt an FPN for that offence would ever be issued again. But cyclists don't. If you've ever walked down Clumber Street, or Mapperley Top, or Beeston Town centre or anywhere for that matter all you will see is Cyclists bombing down the pavement at full pelt without a care in the world. There have certainly been several stories in the last few months in the Evening Post about people who have been knocked over, and I distinctly remember one about a PC who tried to issue an FPN to the very same sort of person who then assaulted him. Because he thought it was his divine right to do whatever the hell he wanted.

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.

Nice one Rob - we should all be keeping an eye on these interfering goons. Soon there will be police on every street, in every home... unless we hound them out.

And let's not forget the cameras that also need to be taken care of.

Can anyone tell me the main differences between Nottingham Councils CPS (Community Protection Officers)? Why are they dressed up to look like 'Police'. They are not even PCSO's.The give away is the cap badge of the Nottingham Council in their caps. They have the powers to issue FPNs and demand names and addresses. But to look at them, they wear a similar uniform to a Police Officer, a stab vest, other 'bits' hung on a utility belt and have a checkered cap band on their caps, even down to wearing Maglites.

Congratulations Mr Rob O' Copp, I like support your initiative to watch these professionals. Lets have Community Support Officers answerable to their local community through web feedback. Maybe something along the lines of  http://www.RATEMYCOP.com/ which is a privately-held company based in Los Angeles. The website allows registered users to leave written feedback about their interactions with police officers, and rank the officer's service based on three criteria: Professionalism, Fairness and Satisfaction.

PSCO's are a waste of space. I was cycling down bobbers mill bridge, there was no one on the very wide pavement, and that road is fucking well dicey, so I was cycling on the pavement. I was repremanded by a plastic policeman. Thankfully he was on the other side of the road shouting across to me, so I was able to flip him the bird, and carry on my merry way. Made my day it did.

To Martin.

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.

Why did Rob O'Copp tell the plastic policeman who he was? Why not tell him to go away and catch some crooks instead of harrassing the public! Or he could make a stand, go to court and argue the toss.

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.

Probably because PCSOs in Nottinghamshire are allowed to physically restrain people who don't give name and address.

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.

Twiggs

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.

I'm a Ministry Of Transport recognised cycling instructor, trained by them and the CTC. I've been that for about 7 or 8 years now. I'm also a cycle journalist, despite all the bikes, I'm also a driver and like a lot of drivers, I occasionally park on the pavement, which means in fact that I have driven on the pavement. You see that all over town, you see hundreds, thousands of cars, parked on the pavements.

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.

Casual observer seems to know a lot about the appearance and powers of PCSOs and CPOs. Also, in contrast to other posters here, s/he seems to have unstinting praise for them and seems ready to rubbish anyone who disagrees.

I wonder whose payroll you're on?

I should begin by answering a few of the questions which have been raised about myself and my activities. In the first place, I am keen to clear up that I was not cycling dangerously or bombing down the pavement, or being an idiot of any sort. I was, as I explained, crossing a pedestrian area to reach a cycle stand, a distance of approximately 10 metres, at a guess. However, this is something of an irrelevance. The incident did not give rise to waves of impotent fury, injustice, or desire for brutal revenge and I am not writing this in fumes of anti-establishment rage.

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

I know a lot about their different powers e.t.c. because I'm not an uninformed agitator who spouts off on internet forums about things based solely on opinion.

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.

"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."

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:

 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=slLpJZ_fYr8&feature=related

What's wrong with bashing figures of authority, observer? (And why are you no longer casual? Has this all this talk of taking the law into our own hands ruffled your feathers?) It's about time people started revealing how meddling and incompetent pseudo cops are.

"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:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2007/03/364864.html
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?

Nothing wrong with criticising people in authority, when they deserve it, and trying to refrain from doing so to everybody who does a particular job, just because of your experiences with one person.

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.

I’ve lived around Forest Fields for about six years now. I quickly found out what people do when they don’t want their furniture, video machines, or any goods that are still functional, you leave it out on the street and allow other people can pick it up. I’ve been doing this for a long time, if I don’t need something like a chair I will put it outside usually within a couple of hours people will pick it up. People always stack it neatly against the walls so that no one stumbles over it.

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.

Good to hear that certain communities have managed to co-operate to establish such a "gift economy" in Nottingham. It cuts down on waste, decreases consumerism and connects people through giving, especially important in these hard times. Now that's what I call real'Community Support'an initiative that ought to be supported. I used to live in the Netherlands, this was a common feature of daily life that I really enjoyed.

"Pre-judging people is something you guys are normally dead against"

"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.

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.

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.

I was working self-employed in Mapperley Park. I do landscape gardening but I work on the joinery side of things so this time I was making a bespoke fence for a client. I’d finished work and the client who I was working for was having a bit of a clear out, he told me he was throwing out his records and asked me if I wanted any. I had a good look through his record collection and found quite a few that I really wanted to have. I took those, left work, and was walking down the road when I was spotted by a couple of PCSO’s They were Police Community Support Officers ( that was written on my stop and search sheet). They saw me, I was on the other side of the road, and they crossed over. It has to be noted that it was quite obvious that I’d been working. My trousers were covered in mud, I was wearing work clothes, I had a bag on my back which actually was full of tools but they never asked me anything about that, just specifically the records I was holding. I had a drill, in fact a crowbar (which is quite amusing) and another few bits and bobs which I use for work and needed to take back from work. In fact a friend of mine was working down the road in a garden and I was going to his van and I was going to get a lift back with him.

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.

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.

Yeah - I misjudged it. Casual observer is more of a casual copper than a NCC worker. Well called 'One of the "guys"'.

"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"?

15.15-15.45 Thursday 15 January 2008

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.

16.30 Thursday 15 January 2008

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.

Just out of curiosity, whilst this little project of yours is all very interesting, will you perhaps be submitting reports about good news and from people with praise for these officers? Will you even make any sort of effort to find someone with a good story?

Or is it going to be one sided.

We are feeding back the comments we are getting from the streets. Right now people have fed back some neutral observations but nothing positive. Yesterday a man came to talk to us when the unit was based in Hyson Green.

"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."

dear Wondering

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

My advice would be to get in touch with the local area commander responsible for Hyson Green and explain to him/or her your dilemma. They would probably (I would hope) have a word on your behalf with the officer and tell them to back off a bit. Their telephone number is 01159400999 ext 4416.

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.

With reference to the following:

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.

Ofcom is doing its job, it has responded to complaints regarding the Home Office funded TV series designed to show PCSO's in an overwhelmingly positive light. It was not made clear that this series was paid for by the government.

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".