Right - these thoughts are not fully formed, but the sentiments have been brewing for a while... Part of what I want to say relates to the general tone of police blogs, and part relates to the idea of police blogging itself. I've been a police officer for about six years now. I joined (like many other these days) comparatively late in life, in my early 40s. If you told me ten or fifteen years ago that I'd be a policeman one day I'd have simultaneously looked horrified and laughed my head off. But I don't think it is only me that has changed over those ten or fifteen years. The police service (I am happy to use that word as well as 'force', unlike many of my colleagues) has changed enormously. Some of that change has resulted in the target-driven, PC-gone-mad, you-couldn't-make-it-up type of thing about which David Copperfield, Inspector Gadget and others write so well. The other side of the change, the massively positive side, the side which many police bloggers either don't realise or choose to ignore - is the side which has challenged the conscious and unconscious racism within society (and therefore within the police); the homophobia and the targeting of gay pubs, clubs and meeting places; the wielding of power without acceptance of accountability. I'm not saying that police officers who served during that time are bad people - I know and deeply respect many of them. But some of my experiences of the police when I grew up in London in the 70s and 80s were deeply negative - ranging from unprofessional behaviour to open racism. So, many police bloggers will criticise ‘the latest fashionable government initiative’, with no thought or examination of the possible reasons or history behind that initiative. As an example - many police officers slag off the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), which is an (admittedly bureaucratic) attempt to bring consistency and integrity into crime reporting across the country. The aim is to get figures about crime which actually mean something, and which can be used to plan for future needs. One of the results is the fact that we have to 'crime everything', leading to a frustrating inability to exercise our discretion over 'shit jobs' that we /know/ are 'going nowhere'. Although I too get frustrated about NCRS, I also recall a day that I was cycling to work near Clissold Park in north London and I got knocked off my bike. I landed badly on my wrist, and as I picked myself up the driver of the car which had knocked me off got out of his car and started having a go at me. I tried to put my damaged bike between me and him but he punched me in the face. I fell to the ground with blood spurting from my nose, and he got back in his car and drove off. While this was happening an independent witness (a passing driver who had stopped) was phoning the police. She stayed around until they arrived about fifteen minutes later. We were ready with the number plate of the offending car, and our descriptions of the driver. I was covered in blood from my bleeding nose. The two officers who attended regretfully informed me that what had occurred was a 'common assault', and that it was a therefore a 'civil matter'. They said that due to this fact, much as they would like to assist they were actually legally prevented from doing so. I would have to engage a solicitor to act on my behalf, and take my assailant to court myself - if I could find him. They refused to take my details, those of the witness, or our descriptions of the offending vehicle or driver. I took their word for it, and wheeled my wobbly bike home. Later, having gone to work by tube, I visited UCH and found I had a broken bone in my wrist. I phoned the police and told them this. I was completely ignored, and heard nothing. Of course now I know that the officers ‘cuffed’ the crime. I was a ‘shit job’ which was probably ‘going nowhere’. Now, from their perspective, faced with the same situation, I can see myself inwardly sighing about having to record both a FTS/FTR injury/damage RTC, and an ABH – with the T1, MG11, crime report, RTC stats etc etc to fill in – with at best a messy conclusion at court in 18 months, and at worst the whole thing just being NFA’d after all that work had been done. But I actually deserved a service, and I was lied to to prevent me from getting that service. If NCRS stops that kind of thing happening, then it has some worth. I see many of the changes that have taken place in the police over the last few years as very positive. That isn’t a view you tend to read in many (or any?) police blogs though. As for the idea of police blogging itself… I’m a very ‘political’ person. I’ve never belonged to any party, but I have my own views and am interested in politics and passionate about certain issues. However, when I joined the police I knew that these views would have to stay private. As a police officer you are specifically barred from active involvement in politics. There are very good reasons for this. As an EMT, Tom Reynolds has to provide a certain level of service – but he has very few coercive powers to allow him to do so. It wouldn’t matter very much if someone knew what political party he voted for, or how he feels about how Ken is running London. It is unlikely that anyone would believe that this would affect his treatment of them when they are suffering from an asthma attack (with the exception of accusations of racism, which are sadly all too familiar). With the police it is quite different. We have massive coercive powers. We can chose to arrest people, slap handcuffs on them, and lock them up for hours while we take statements and seize videos etc. We can kick their doors in and go through all their stuff. We can stop them in the street and pat them down. We can stop them going to a demonstration (eg. Docklands), or pen them up and prevent them from leaving one for hours (eg. Oxford Circus). We have been used politically before (eg, the General Strike, the Miner’s Strike etc), and there is always pressure on us – certainly from this current government - to act in certain ways. If individual officers become involved in open political comment, then the communities that they work within will be less willing to trust them. We have to maintain impartiality at all times – sadly at the cost of our own individual freedom of expression. One answer is anonymous blogging, but we all know how difficult it is to maintain. Ask Abby Lee, or any other ‘outed’ blogger. But you also have to think about what views you would be comfortable with a police blogger expressing. If for example there was an openly racist police blogger would we want him to be ‘outed’? Sadly I conclude that it would be very hard for police forces to adopt the same permissive policy on bloggers that the LAS seems to have done with Reynolds. The minute police officers start commenting on anything at all it will either be political, or it will be regarded by some as political. And that’s were the problems start. Sorry for not putting it particularly eloquently, and for hijacking your comments!