Why don't we think a bit more widely? Putting aside the events surrounding Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, what has been noticeable in recent commentary on protests and their policing has been a remarkable lack of strategic thinking. There are comments on kettling and police attitudes – and now the question of who should lose their job has arisen.

Even leader writers seem to have taken their cue from the coalition's approach to policing, which appears, in contrast to its approach to defence or health, to be determinedly not to look for the big picture. With the greatest cutbacks ever seen in policing due, it is frustrating that the government has refused to consider a holistic approach. The Police Federation and the home affairs select committee have called for a royal commission to consider the future of the service, which the government has refused. It has set up a number of unconnected reviews, including one into police leadership and one into pay and conditions. The review into public sector pensions will also affect policing.

And then there is the announcement of the introduction of elected police commissioners, apparently drawn from the US model of elected sheriffs, without any intellectual underpinning or historical understanding of the kind of national compact between the UK police and its public. The service faces being distorted by these pressures yet it can't set them against a clearly stated vision of what the government and people want. At the same time, it faces an expanding mission towards a greater local presence and the development of its capability to counter terrorist threats. Meanwhile, there is no sign that either the government or opposition politicians will reshape the way policing services are delivered. Instead, there is every chance that more officers will be taken away from contact with the public to undertake support duties because civilian staff have been made redundant...>> Read more

Author: Ian Blair
Source: The Guardian Online