Evening All: Birth of "The Met"
Whereas offences against property have of late increased in and near the metropolis; and the local establishments of nightly watch and nightly police have been found inadequate to the prevention and detection of crime, by reason of the frequent unfitness of the individuals employed, the insufficiency of their number, the limited sphere of their authority, and their want of connection and co-operation with each other: And whereas it is expedient to substitute a new and more efficient system of police in lieu of such establishments of nightly watch and nightly police, within the limits herein-after mentioned, and to constitute an office of police, which, acting under the immediate authority of one of his Majesty’s principal secretaries of state, shall direct and control the whole of such new system of police within those limits.
So goes the preamble of the Metropolitan Police Act of 19 June 1829, which established the organisation we know today. As every child should know, Sir Robert Peel was the moving force behind the Act. The Met was actually founded and operational a few months later on 29 September. Its first two commissioners were Sir Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne. The City of London was excluded from these arrangements, running their own force, as they do to this day.
Much is made – rightly – of the so-called Peelian principles, although there is no evidence that he himself devised them:
- The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
- The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
- Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
- The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
- Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
- Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
- Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
- The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
I read the Principles with two conflicting emotions. The first was admiration for the way in which the 9 items admirably define “policing as it should be done”, and the second was sadness in acknowledging how far today’s police behaviour departs from the Principles.
I think that, as is likely with any embattled organization, the police have drawn apart from the public and no longer considers itself part of it. I used to read a number of police blogs until I became so disenchanted with them that I unsubscribed from all of them. What I saw there of the denigratory and often hostile attitude of the police to the public disturbed me, to say the least.
Not that I put all the blame on police offices themselves: I do feel that for complex reasons police and public have come to see themselves in opposition to one another. This is not helped by the passing of draconian laws on “security” whose heavy-handed implementation by insensitive officers rightly angers the public. Here I think, for example, of police officers interfering with people harmlessly taking photos of historic buildings.
When you give ordinary humans special authority, abuse of that authority follows as a matter of course. Running an efficient but just police service is therefore an extremely subtle art that requires extremely talented leaders. It also requires a strong ethos among officers themselves. Unfortunately, we see many signs of weak leadership combined with a self-serving ethos that covers up abuse instead of exposing and dealing with it.
What must we do to return to a point where the police are seen to be the living embodiment of the Peelian Principles?
Agree entirely. Our police forces seem to have lost sight of the fact that they are servants of the people, not servants of the government. There are many problems, not least fast-tracking officers through Hendon for tick-box training and modern management hokum, they come out the other end sucking their pencils trying to make up mindless slogans, like Building a Safer Community of All, etc. etc., which normally, as you point out, involves harassing photographers behind the beard of anti-terrorism.
Anyway, thanks for the comments, hope you keeping well.
Yes, thanks. We have been away based on Manchester. Took loads of photos and wasn’t challenged by police or security guards once!
Highlights of the trip: the People’s History Museum, Port Sunlight and Lady Lever Art Gallery, riding the trams back and forth between Manchester, Bury, Eccles and Altrincham. Oh yes, and I was forgetting the wonderful Manchester Transport Museum… and the fantastic John Rylands library… No end of stuff…