Law & Order : £1m cost to taxpayer of suspended Police Officers

Reports by the Sunday Herald newspaper reveal that £1million of taxpayers money is being spent on keeping Police officers suspended for various reasons, including criminal charges.

Additionally, reports in the newspaper reveal that two Police officers have been on suspension for four years !

The Sunday Herald reports :

Police under fire as two suspended officers spend four years on full pay

New figures reveal £1m cost to taxpayer in wages for disciplined officers
By Paul Hutcheon, Investigations Editor

SCOTLAND'S POLICE forces are under pressure to reform their disciplinary systems after it emerged that two officers have been suspended on full pay for nearly four years each. Thirty-two officers across Scotland are currently suspended, at a cost to the taxpayer of around £1 million pounds.

They face allegations relating to drug offences, excessive force and "corrupt practices". The figures were handed to the Sunday Herald following a freedom of information (FOI) request to the country's eight police forces.

Each force was asked for the number of suspended officers, the total wage bill racked up during their disciplinary investigation, how long each officer had been off work and the offences they were accused of.

Six officers are currently suspended on full pay in the Grampian force. Four have been off for less than a year. However, another officer has been suspended for two-and-a-half years, while a colleague has been suspended for nearly four years. The total wage bill, according to the organisation, is at least £282,926.

Eleven officers in Strathclyde Police, Scotland's largest force, are suspended on full pay. Four have been away from the front line for less than a year, six for over one year, while an unnamed officer has been off for three years and nine months. Neither Grampian nor Strathclyde would confirm why their officers had been suspended.

In the Lothian and Borders force six officers are currently suspended - the longest being for 15 months. All six are suspected of committing criminal acts, four of whom have been reported to the procurator-fiscal. The wage bill for the six during the disciplinary procedure comes to £165,906.

In Tayside, two officers are suspended on full pay following allegations of drug offences, a breach of data protection and alleged corrupt practices. The force declined to put a figure on the wage bill on the grounds it was "personal data".

Fife Constabulary, however, said that the total cost to the taxpayer of suspending three of its officers was £120,188.95. The force confirmed that each of the three was facing "criminal and or misconduct investigations".

A senior police source, while defending an officer's right to receive full pay while on suspension, said it was "ridiculous" for a case to drag on for four years.

Tory MSP Bill Aitken said: "It is clearly in the best interests of both the individual officers and the taxpayer that these matters are disposed of as quickly as possible. Where the allegations do not concern alleged criminality, these suspensions should be dealt with in days, rather than weeks."

Raymond Pratt, the deputy general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, said: "Whether an officer is suspended is a matter purely for the deputy chief constable. We believe it should be used in only the most serious cases and for the shortest possible period of time. We cannot comment on particular cases but we are concerned about the adverse effects of lengthy periods of suspension on officers and their families."

Superintendent Iain McGrory, the head of professional standards at Grampian Police, said: "In line with employment law, we cannot comment on individual cases, especially so when criminal proceedings are still active.

"But the decision to suspend a member of the force is given very careful consideration and clearly it is not in anyone's interest for that suspension to last any longer than necessary."

Chief Superintendent John Pollock, at Strathclyde Police, said: "The force is fully committed to ensuring a proper balance between the need to protect the public, protecting individual officers and to provide value for money and sustain confidence in policing.

"Having reviewed our approach to suspension, we have reduced the number of officers currently suspended."

Law & Order : Police demand drug dealers be banned from pubs

Members of the Scottish Police Federation have backed a motion calling for pub landlords to ban drug dealers from their establishments. (and rightly so – Ed)

The Scotsman reports :

Police call for drug dealers to be banned from their local pubs

Published Date: 23 April 2009
By Michael Howie
Home affairs correspondent

DRUG-dealers should be banned from pubs to alienate them from their local communities, Scotland's rank-and-file police officers demanded yesterday.

Scottish Police Federation members backed a motion to deprive criminals of their "gang hut premises" and force licence holders to exclude them.

Officers voted in favour of new legislation that would make it an offence for proprietors to allow convicted drug dealers in their pubs.

Sergeant Colin Johnston of Strathclyde Police told the annual conference in Peebles it was time to create new Asbo-style banning orders for people convicted of supplying drugs.

He pointed out that Section 80 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 had created the offence for licence holders to allow persons of bad character to frequent licensed premises.

But the legislation was under-used in police operations and was eventually repealed and not replaced.

However, Sergeant Johnston believes convicted drug dealers should be alienated in their communities and an amendment should be made to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to make licensees more accountable on who they serve.

He said: "These are licensed premises; it is not a free-for-all, so the licensees are responsible.

"It is time to regain control of our pubs and totally exclude those who have been convicted of drug-dealing.

"We should deprive criminals of their gang hut premises.

"It would take away their standing in society by removing them from pubs."

He was backed by Sergeant Frank Carroll of Strathclyde Police who said: "It is time for licensees to take full responsibility for their premises and exclude these people.

"What is the point in removing them from houses if they can still go about freely in licensed premises?

"They should be excluded from all aspects of public life."

Members representing Scotland's 16,000 police officers voted 73.74 per cent in favour of the motion.

It called for the federation to take up the matter with justice secretary Kenny McAskill to secure an amendment to the current legislation "seeking to exclude from licensed premises persons of bad character, namely those convicted of offences concerning the supply of convicted drugs".

A Scottish Government spokeswoman last night said new legislation in September will allow for a review of a premises licence on the grounds that not enough is being done to prevent crime and disorder.

"We are confident that the powers available to the police in the Act, combined with the new powers we are introducing in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, will give the police and licensing boards the right tools to tackle crime and disorder in respect of licensed premises and shut premises."

Meanwhile, police also backed a motion calling for officers to be routinely equipped with Tasers when confronting criminals in possession of knives and other weapons.

Law & Order : Crown Office should pay for Police time spent at court

The Scottish Police Federation’s Chair, Norrie Flowers, has called for the Crown Office to pay for the time Police Officers spend at court. (A reasonable proposition, considering the Crown Office often waste plenty time themselves – Ed)

The Herald reports :

Call for Crown to pay for ‘wasted’ police time at court

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter April 22 2009

The chair of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF), which represents more than 15,000 rank and file officers, has called for the Crown Office to pay for police time at court to curb the amount of man hours and money currently "wasted".

In his final speech to the federation's annual conference in Peebles, Norrie Flowers, chairman of the SPF, told the Justice Secretary that little has improved in this regard since 1977 and that hundreds of officers are called to court daily only to be told that they are not required.

"Consecutive governments have been either unable or unwilling to address this problem," said Mr Flowers. "To be perfectly blunt, this is communities being denied the services of hundreds of police officers daily without a solution in sight. Although the courts are a major problem, I am sure we can work smarter with the procurator fiscal service fixed penalties do not address this phenomenal waste of effort."

He added: "If the Crown were responsible for paying the costs of officers going to court, then I think this would change."

Prior to recent changes to summary justice and the introduction of fines in the form of fixed penalty notices, a five-month audit at Edinburgh Sheriff Court revealed that only 120 out of 744 police witnesses actually gave evidence - about 16% - wasting an estimated £127,456.

However, in response, Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said: "Cases are now being dealt with a month sooner on average. Around 50,000 witnesses were spared the need to be cited between April to December 2008 compared with the same period the previous year."

The chairman also said that any suggestion of cutting police numbers to make savings during the recession needed to be "robustly discredited". Speaking on the economic downturn, Mr Flowers said: "It's not just crime that increases, it's public disorder and anti-social behaviour, too."

Mr MacAskill reiterated that the government has no plans to reduce the country's forces from eight to one and Mr Flowers made clear the federation would be opposed to such a move.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "We continue to work with the police to reduce the amount of time spent by officers unnecessarily at court and the summary justice reforms introduced in March 2008 are already resulting in significant improvements."

Law & Order : Police want plain English over political correctness

Having to be politically correct seems to be taking its toll on our Police forces, as the Scottish Police Federation are to put forward a proposal to write reports in plain English (better include spellcheckers for them too ! – Ed)

The Scotsman reports :

Police officers want to scrap ploddledygook and use plain English instead

Published Date: 15 April 2009
By Michael Howie

THEY have traditionally had fun poked at them for phrases such as "what 'ave we got here, then?" and "the suspect proceeded in a westerly direction".

But the growth of management speak in recent years has seen the police increasingly resort to a plethora of politically correct phrases that often serve only to confuse and irritate.

A new logo introduced by Lothian and Borders' finest last year, for example, was meant to not only help people recognise the force but represent a "new tone of voice".

And obscure acronyms that are meaningless to virtually anyone other than the police – ACPOS, SPSA, SCDEA and SID being four of the better known ones – have abounded.

Now, rank-and-file officers have launched a bid to rid the police service of what has come to be known as "ploddledygook".

The Scottish Police Federation's annual conference will next week discuss a proposal to ensure their reports are written in plain English.

The move comes from officers at Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, who say they are frustrated by the police's convoluted lexicon.

"The mover of the motion feels strongly that for too long the police service has chosen verbosity over accuracy and clarity and that in 2009 there should be a return to plain English," says a report to go before members.

"Too many documents are crowded with management terminology and buzz phrases which wax and wane in popularity.

A return to plain English would avoid confusion and doubt about exactly what we are saying and meaning and would benefit not only the police service but the communities we serve."

One officer admitted last night that officers were guilty of using overly complicated language.

Constable Allan Scott, a media liaison officer at Lothian and Borders Police, said: "It's a fair cop.

"We are guilty of using too many acronyms – such as 'this SPOC has to do this'. If you're not in the know, you're left thinking 'what is an SPOC?' (It stands for single point of contact.]

"So you end up putting things in brackets, which only makes the document longer."

But he said police were already taking steps to tidy up their language.

"We have recently got away from the stupid-speak and try to use normal-speak as much as possible," Mr Scott said.

But he insisted the rules on giving evidence in criminal court cases meant police would have to continue using phrases such as "the suspect did then aggressively resist arrest" when they really meant "he swung at me". He said: "There is a requirement for that in a court of law."

The Plain English Campaign has also been calling on police forces to use simpler language when communicating with the public.

Examples of "ploddledygook" picked out by the campaign include Norfolk Police's description of its control room – where crimes are reported – as "Citizen Focus Command".

Last night, Marie Clair, spokeswoman for Plain English Campaign, gave a warm welcome to the latest proposal.

"This is a constructive move to get plain language into our information, where jargon and gobbledygook can be so frustrating not only for the public, but also the police employees who have to deal with it daily.

"A respectful, common-sense approach that is clear and honest can deal with most communications, including any sensitive issues, and avoid the need for excessive political correctness," she said.