MARTIN GALLAGHER: Real policing cannot be delivered by officers sitting at a laptop
Social media can be a real boon, with individuals connecting in useful or entertaining ways that would have been unimaginable twenty years ago.
Sadly, some of these connections have been far from useful. Social media has evolved in some areas as a means to share evil ideas, from terrorist content to extreme right and left views.
But the evil content is far outweighed by the entertaining or useful.
While it is correct that the police are made aware of and tackle content that seeks to cause actual harm, the bar for what falls into this category has been dropping year on year.
Opinion and disagreement are not the place of the police.
We have allowed the service to become involved in areas that some may find offensive but are far from criminal - and harm no one.
This has been gradual, but with no sensible barriers put in place by the police, more and more ridiculous complaints have been received.
These complainants, had they attended at a police station, would simply have been told that straightforward disagreement is not a police matter.
Being offended is not a crime.
By taking on an increasing number of such complaints, the danger is that the police become complacent and allow the bar for what is a police matter to continue to slip.
Dealing with online arguments removes resource from where it is really needed.
Actual crime solvency is down, while violent crime, particularly amongst the young, is rising.
Policing a Twitter spat might be far easier than catching a housebreaker - but the impact of one is far greater than the other.
The police need to be far stronger around what they will, and will not, become involved in within the virtual world and refocus on actual crime, not hurt feelings.
There are finite resources available. These officers need to be directed to work of worth - not virtue-signalling.
We do need police back on the streets to but the thin blue line has become considerably thinner since Police Scotland was formed - with 1,000 fewer police officers than at formation in 2013.
Rob Hay, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, talks of avoiding the service being 'cannibalised' by looming decisions over potentially cutting police pay versus officer numbers.
Sadly, it has already happened.
Policing fills the holes other parts of the public sector have allowed to develop, while pet projects and niche topics have been prioritised rather than real impacts on lives.
The police who are left are working from fewer and fewer police stations, in fewer communities.
The Chief Constable, Jo Farrell, spoke of officers working from new premises that will improve officer and staff wellbeing.
This is all very good, but what of operational realities and the needs of the public?
It is crystal clear, too, that crime is expanding online, and it is right that resources are directed, where appropriate, to the virtual realm.
Fraud has been allowed to metastasise while policing has been absent.
However, walk down any high street in the country and it is obvious real policing is still required - and cannot be delivered at closing time by an officer sitting in front of a lap top.
Technology, such as body-worn video cameras, is freeing up officer time.
There needs to be careful consideration of where this capacity is applied.
Rushing headlong into the virtual world while the real world suffers a dearth of policing presence would be folly.
The police have made sacrifices, as numbers have dwindled and demands, many of which are not core business, have risen.
The ill-advised policy of 'proportionate response' - where minor crime is effectively disregarded - is one such trade-off, while the lack of a policing presence outside nightclubs as they close is another.
And officers are still spending too much time dealing with those with mental health problems, which prevents them from undertaking their core duties of preventing and fighting crime.
The answer lies in grasping a nettle the Chief Constable and Cabinet Secretary acknowledged but did not take hold off.
The days of politely asking Government bodies to shoulder their burden are over. They must now be told.
You have to be on the streets to police them. If the police are not freed from responsibilities that aren't theirs, this will not happen.
■ Martin Gallagher is a former superintendent with Police Scotland, who served as area commander of Paisley
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
21 minutes ago
- Sky News
The Wargame podcast: Fictional British government faces a terrifying choice in final episode
Under yet another attack from Russia, a fictional British government of former ministers and military chiefs face a terrifying choice in the final episode of The Wargame. The home secretary, played by Amber Rudd, asks a key question. "We have the nuclear deterrent. In what circumstances would we use it prime minister?" Sir Ben Wallace, a former defence secretary who is playing the PM, offers his view - but is it one that is shared by the rest of his wartime cabinet? The British side is struggling to respond to mounting pressure from an imagined Kremlin in episode five of the Sky News and Tortoise podcast series, released on Tuesday. The Russian leam has unleashed waves of missile strikes and is demanding the UK agrees to an unconditional ceasefire. 28:54 NATO allies still not fully committed to rallying to help, the UK's options are dangerously limited. The dilemma exposes the particular peril for a nuclear-armed nation, such as Britain, that has allowed its conventional fighting power to shrink too far. It means, in a crisis, the UK no longer has the ability to sustain a fight conventionally, so escalating to nuclear war would have to happen far more rapidly - or else admit defeat. 4:35 Rebuilding conventional military capability and capacity as well as restoring wider national resilience, though, will be expensive. Whether or not the government and the public want to pay for this kind of conventional deterrence, well that's the big choice.
Sky News
21 minutes ago
- Sky News
PM warns of 'era of radical uncertainty' - and says UK will increase defence spending
Sir Keir Starmer said the UK is set to increase spending on defence, security and resilience to 5% of GDP by 2035 to meet an "era of radical uncertainty" - but without promising any additional cash. The move - part of a new spending pledge by the NATO alliance - was panned as deceptive "smoke and mirrors" by critics, who pointed to the very real risk of escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel, as well as Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Sky News the timeline for the increase was "very slow" and warned Russia could attack a NATO country within five years. "In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030, Putin can have significantly greater capabilities," he told chief presenter Mark Austin. 1:32 The prime minister, Donald Trump and the other leaders of NATO's 32 member states are expected to approve the investment goal when they meet at a summit in The Hague, which opens later today. It replaces a previous target to spend 2% of GDP purely on defence. The announcement will be celebrated as a win for the US president, who has been demanding his allies spend more on their own defences instead of relying on American firepower. Overnight, he claimed to have secured another success, declaring that Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire - just hours after Iran launched missiles against two American military bases in retaliation to a US decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Perhaps it will mean he will switch attention back to achieving a goal to end Russia's war in Ukraine, which will be another key focus of the gathering in the Dutch capital. NATO planners have crunched the summit down to a short main session tomorrow, with a final communique much briefer than usual - all steps designed to reduce the chance of the US president leaving early. He is already scheduled to arrive late and last this evening, provided he turns up. There is huge nervousness about Mr Trump's commitment to an alliance that has been the bedrock of European security since it was founded more than 75 years ago. He is not a fan though, and has previously accused Europe and Canada of an overreliance on American firepower for their own security, calling for them to do more to defend themselves. This pressure has arguably been a bigger motivator in prompting certain allies to agree to spend more on their militaries than the threat they say is posed by Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. Spain's position could create friction this week. The Spanish prime minister, while agreeing to the new investment goal, has said his country is not obliged to meet it. The UK was also slow to say yes - a stance that was at odds with a defence review endorsed by Sir Keir that was centred around a "NATO-first" policy. As well as agreeing to the defence and security investment goal, the British government is also publishing a new national security strategy on Tuesday that will highlight the importance of a wider definition of what constitutes security, including energy, food and borders. There will also be a focus on a whole-of-society approach to resilience in an echo of the UK's Cold War past. It described the commitment to invest in defence, security and national resilience as an aligning of "national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since 1945". Sir Keir said: "We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe. "That's why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience." The funding will be split, with 3.5% of GDP going on core defence and 1.5% on homeland security and national resilience - a new and so far less clearly defined criteria. Progress on investment will be reviewed in 2029. The defence goal is higher than the government's current ambition to lift defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2034, from 2.3% currently. The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027 - a figure that has been boosted by the addition of the whole of the budget for the intelligence agencies. This level of intelligence spending had not previously been included and has drawn criticism from defence experts because it is not the same as tanks, artillery and troops. The government, in its statement, is now focusing on an even higher-sounding number, claiming that it will hit 4.1% of the new NATO target by 2027. However, this is merely based on adding the new 1.5% spending goal for "resilience and security" to the already stated 2.6% defence spending pledge. A Downing Street spokesperson was unable immediately to say how much of GDP is currently spent on whatever is included in the new resilience category. It could include pre-announced investment in civil nuclear energy as well as infrastructure projects such as roads and railways. For the UK, 1.5% of GDP is about £40bn - a significant chunk of national income. Sir Ben Wallace, a former Conservative defence secretary, accused the government of "spin" over its spending pledge because it does not include any new money anytime soon. "The threat to our country is real not spin," he told Sky News. "This government thinks it can use smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and Donald Trump. This is an insult to our troops who will see no significant new money. It fools no one."
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
International law 'at heart' of Starmer's foreign policy, says attorney general
A commitment to international law "goes absolutely to the heart" of Sir Keir Starmer's government and its approach to foreign policy, the attorney general has told the his first broadcast interview, Lord Richard Hermer, who is the Cabinet's chief legal adviser, said that the government was determined to "lead on international law issues" argued that this has enabled the UK to strike economic deals with the US, India and the EU in recent months. The attorney general also defended Starmer's decision to seek a "warm" relationship with President Trump even at the expense of "short-term political gain". Lord Hermer's comments, which came in a full extended interview for an upcoming BBC Radio 4 programme Starmer's Stormy Year, were made before recent speculation about his legal advice regarding the government's approach to the conflict between Israel and they help to illuminate the approach being taken by one of the most powerful figures in government, as ministers navigate a perilous diplomatic Monday, the government repeatedly declined to say whether it believed that America's strikes on Iran were legal, arguing that this was not a question for British ministers to approach to the law taken by Hermer, an old friend of the prime minister who had no political profile prior to his surprise appointment almost a year ago, has been a persistent controversy throughout Starmer's whether international law was a "red line" for the prime minister in foreign policy, Hermer replied: "If you ask me what's Keir's kind of principal overriding interest, it is genuinely to make life better for the people of this country."He continued: "Is international law important to this government and to this prime minister? Of course it is."It's important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country. "And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law - domestic law and international law - we serve the national interest."Hermer added: "Look, we've just entered trade deals with the United States, with India, with the EU, and we're able to do that because we're back on the world stage as a country whose word is their bond."No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'we may comply with it, we may not'."We do. We succeed. We secure those trade deals, which are essential for making people's lives better in this country."We secure deals on migration with France, with Germany, with Iraq, that are going to deal with some of the other fundamental problems that we face, and we can do that because we comply, and we're seen to comply and indeed lead on international law issues."Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country."Speaking about the UK's relationship with the US more generally, Hermer said: "It's a relationship that will no doubt at various points have various different pressures, but it is an absolutely vital one for us to have. "I think the approach that Keir has taken, which is never to give in to that kind of Love Actually instinct for short-term political gain, but rather to ensure that our relationship with the United States remains warm, that channels of communication are always open, that there is mutual respect between us."I think that is overwhelmingly in this country's interests."In the 2003 film Love Actually, a fictional prime minister contradicts a US president during a press this year, Hermer said he regretted "clumsy" remarks in which he compared calls for the UK to depart from international law and arguments made in 1930s a speech, he criticised politicians who argue the UK should abandon "the constraints of international law in favour of raw power", saying similar claims had been made by legal theorists in Germany in the years before the Nazis came to Conservatives and Reform UK have called for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
