Part 1 – 1829 – This is where it all started …

” It should be understood at the outset that the principal object to be obtained is the prevention of crime. To this great end, every effort of the police is to be directed.
The security of person and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the other objects of a police establishment, will thus be better effected than by the detection and the punishment of the offender after he has committed the crime.
This should constantly be kept in mind by every member of the police force as a guide for his own conduct. “
Instructions to the new Metropolitan Police by the Commissioners, Rowan and Maine, 1829.

… and yet the challenges remain

This first of nine principles of policing originated from the “General Instructions” issued to every new police officer in the Metropolitan Police from 1829; principle 9 suggests that we should “always recognise that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them”. The gist is that police action is the means to achieve the ends of crime and disorder reduction. Prevention comes first and foremost.

For almost 200 years, the original Peelian policing principles have never achieved the priority that the two original commissioners envisaged. Is there an opportunity to change the direction as we approach the two-hundredth anniversary of the creation of modern policing?

In this series of articles, I explore this but take account of my experience and research in highlighting that this major challenge in achieving an appropriate balance is likely to continue unless a completely fresh approach is taken.

In a recent LinkedIn newsletter, I reflected on 1997, when Tony Blair’s Labour Government swept to power with a resounding landslide victory. Encapsulating its law-and-order stance with the promise to be “Tough on Crime and Tough on the Causes of Crime,” I briefly summarised the strengths and weaknesses of the following policy initiatives and consequences following the election.

I will now rewind to the two years before the election and share my experiences in setting the context for an alternative manifesto almost thirty years later. A prequel to the 1997 before considering the sequel in further parts of this Selfless Leader Matters Newletter series.

 

Setting the Context betwixt Landslide Labour Victories

During the run-up to the 1997 election, I wrote an essay based on my passion for community policing and my thoughts for the future as a Divisional Police Commander dedicated to my community in the heart of Leicestershire. My essay was submitted to what was then the Queens Police Gold Medal Essay competition. First created in 1929 (as the Kings competition), exactly 100 years after the creation of the modern police service as we know it today, the competition was open to all serving regular police officers in the UK and the Commonwealth, attracting significant numbers of entries each year. The first topic in 1929 was “The co-operation between the Police and the Public in the detection and prosecution of crime”. It was an interesting topic for its time, which aligned with the first Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police statement of the Purpose of Policing.

The 1997 competition drew on a similar title to its founding predecessor. My essay reflected this but drew directly on what was (then) the opposition’s strapline for the 1997 Manifesto for Crime and Justice. My essay title read:
“Tough on crime, tough on causes of crime. To what extent can police and community partnerships assist in the prevention, reduction and detection of crime?”

Although the Home Office, as negotiators on behalf of Her Majesty, did not provide feedback, it must’ve been received well, as I won third prize out of many hundreds of entries and several ‘highly commended’ essays.

This experience also acted as my stimulus to apply for a Bramshill Scholarship for a PhD, which I later completed part time based on the challenges of community policing and community leadership. The combination of my experience and my research (and subsequent teaching and consultancy) has driven my appetite for community based and selfless leadership through to the present day.
My essay, therefore, focused on Blair’s (then in opposition but an increasingly likely future government) 1997 manifesto under this now famous catchline. I drew on my immediate experience and reflected back (to 1829) and forward (beyond 1997).

During the preceding three years from 1994, our policing division won awards for our piloting and successes in community-based policing. We had created local policing units focused on 27 neighbourhoods within our division, setting objectives for community action groups. My division agreed on two-way objectives with the community (alongside force and national-level objectives (both detection and prevention of crime). The aim was to create a truly collective style of leadership. I was influenced by the need to respond to the community challenges when I accompanied the then long-standing Member of Parliament for the East Leicester constituency in question, Mr Greville Janner, at his request on my first Saturday after my appointment. As well as being a very well-respected MP he was also an excellent and published author on the skills of communication which I was able to witness at first hand during our community tour and discussion with residents in an area of significantly high crime, anti social behaviour and (what today we would call) ‘hate’ crime. The neighbourhood in question was one of the most ethnically diverse communities in the UK beset with many wicked (intractable) challenges.

Our chief constable (Sir Keith Povey) was the national lead on Crime Prevention. He was asked to host a Home Office demonstration project on Problem-Oriented Policing (POP), which was implemented in my division. Published as ‘BritPop’ 1 and 2, we were able to share our experiences across the UK and internationally. We also hosted visits from the then Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Michael Howard and (at our Force HQ) HRH the Princess Royal.

From late 1995 to 1996, a vigorous national debate was starting on the desired policing style in England and Wales against a background of significantly rising acquisitive and violent crime. As a representative of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, I, too, took part in some heated conferences and debates in which the UK police service was being encouraged to follow the so-called “Zero Tolerance Approach to Policing and Justice” being driven in New York City. The debate came to a head at the annual conference in Bristol in 1996 when one of my colleague Superintendent members from a different region brought Bill Britton (then NYPD Commissioner) to the conference session to support the Zero Tolerance (ZT) debate.
Zero Tolerance or Problem-Oriented Policing and Partnerships: Opposites or uneasy bedfellows as policing styles?

I was aware of a new approach to policing, influenced by George Kelling’s work on ‘broken windows’. I was also familiar with international arguments on Zero Tolerance passionately advocated by Bill Britton. Our colleague Superintendents and the NY Police Chief were linking their ZT approaches in New York and the Northeast of England, respectively, to the broken windows approach. I knew, from my research, that George Kelling was not advocating a ZT approach as an overall strategy but did advocate ‘high profile enforcement approaches when the problems hit ‘the critical masses’ (“need to get the alligators out of the lake before you put the fish in to swim and prosper”), which was exactly the approach that we were adopting in Leicester.
We brought matters to a head at the Annual Police Superintendents Association Conference in Bristol. Our colleagues were asking the conference to endorse a ZT approach as the right national style of policing and had invited Bill Bratton over to support his motion.

My region agreed to support me in a counter-proposal.

I contacted George Kelling, and he strongly agreed with my interpretation of his Broken Windows approach and agreed to speak against the proposal (on the basis that ZT approaches are one tool in the toolbox for community-based policing but were certainly not a strategy—given the alienation factors that could follow).
At the conference, Professor Kelling said, “I have never used the term ZT, I do not like the term ZT, and as far as I am concerned, the term can be consigned to the waste bin”.

We won the vote 350+ to 1(the one was the Superintendent who led the counter-proposal ). HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary was delighted, and our President of the Superintendents Association also congratulated us and consoled our colleague.

There was a postscript to the conference. Two weeks later, on the immediate run-up to the general election, our esteemed Association President was interviewed on national TV at Brighton (Labour party conference immediately before their election) – promoting ZT as a crucial part of ‘being tough on crime and being tough on the causes of crime’. We had some one-to-one discussions (and exchanges of opinion in the popular policing press (including Police Review (if colleagues remember that!)) I expressed my concern that perhaps he had been at a different conference than I had been – the rest is history!

A few weeks later, Labour swept to power on the ‘Tough on crime ticket’ (which I have no problem with – it is just how you achieve it) and our Association President (who I still got on well with by the way) became the first ever member of the Superintending ranks to go straight to a peerage. I was one of his first invitations to his new House of Lords offices.

As time progressed, my essay was successful in achieving third place, and I received my certificate from the new Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw. I was invited to the conference circuits, taking part in ongoing debates on zero tolerance, problem-oriented policing. I was aware that what NYPD had achieved was exceptional, but not without its downsides, including some suggestions of ‘gaming’.

At one of the conferences, Bill Bratton was told that while crimes had gone down, the number of civil actions against the NYPD had increased significantly. I was aware at that time of research that supported this, but I have not been able to find it since—perhaps lost in the passage of time.

For three years after the election, I worked as Chief Superintendent Lead Staff Officer to the HM Inspector (and later, Chief Inspector) of Constabulary as part of the Home Office. As well as supporting inspections of police forces and their policing styles on the HM Inspector’s behalf, I also led a national review of Crime and Disorder Partnerships to assess forces and partners’ preparedness for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. (the first of such a statutory body), implemented by the new Labour Government.

In 2000, I had the pleasure of meeting the Rt Honorable Jack Straw MP in person. Along with nine colleagues, I was appointed as a seconded member of the Senior Civil Service as the Home Office Crime Reduction Director for the East Midlands, I had a key role to play in the implementation of the 1997 manifesto commitments. I was actively involved in delivering a range of presentations on my approach to community policing and how we were delivering the crime reduction agenda across government departments and in encouraging and overseeing multi sector partnership arrangements. During this time, I kept a watching brief on both NYPD and Chicago and was able to show that crime continued to reduce in both cities—but through totally different policing strategies.

I had first hand experience of the dual approach aimed at reinforcing punitive measures while simultaneously addressing underlying social issues contributing to criminal behaviour. In the early stages, it worked well, and my role as a Home Office Crime Reduction Director became a critical part of the preventative and, to some degree, disruptive agenda. In our performance management role as Directors, progress was being made in meeting with our regional chief constables and partnership Directors.

As time progressed, despite the rhetoric and the encouraging start, much of the focus was on penal measures and strict enforcement regimes. The need for this is accepted. However, the concern was that there needed to be more emphasis and action on preventative strategies. I left the Home Office and Policing and joined Academia in 2006. In 2010, the structures, funding and progress made in progressing the crime reduction agenda completely disappeared as the incoming coalition government introduced the austerity measures that are still impacting all public services today.

To the future through increased Equality, Diversity and Inclusion?

In part two of my series, I will look in more detail at the strengths and weaknesses of the Blair years and the challenges that emerged from 2010 and will compare this to the rhetoric now being espoused in the current election manifestos.

As Keir Starmer eyes a potential landslide victory in the upcoming election, there lies a significant opportunity to rectify this imbalance by flipping the mantra to prioritise being “Tough on the Causes of Crime.” Such a shift could catalyse profound improvements in equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) within the crime and justice system.
Emphasising Equality, Diversity, and Inclusivity in the reform of policing and justice systems is not just about fairness; it’s about creating a more effective and trustworthy system. By addressing biases, promoting accountability, and ensuring that all community members are represented and heard, these reforms can lead to safer, more just, and more inclusive societies. Through EDI, we can build institutions that genuinely serve and protect all citizens, fostering a sense of community and shared responsibility.

How this can be achieved will be explored in my third and final part of the series.