This is the official blog of ex-Sgt Ellie Bloggs. I was a real live police constable then sergeant for twelve years, on the real live front line of England. I'm now a real live non-police person. All the facts I recount are true, and are not secrets. If they don't want me blogging about it, they shouldn't do it. PS If you don't pay tax, you don't (or didn't) pay my salary.

(All proceeds from Google Ads will be donated to the Police Roll of Honour Trust)

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Which sentence would make YOU think twice before committing the same offence?

'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.


Blogger Tulip said...

What kind of Ratchet was it, I mean, if its your average click type, well, its bad, but, if its yer smooth, ball bearing clickless ratchet, then yes, justified, Chrome Vanadium is bad stuff wehn it gets coated wiv blood.

We dont have a endless prison cell to put these yobs in, I mean, no where near enough wide screen tellies, psp and xbox games, gov'ment cant afford it.

You missed one bad lad though, those spineless coppers that stood and watched while people were beat up, shops looted and set on fire, they should be banged up as well, spineless yobs, same as the rioters.

18 August, 2011 15:05

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bollocks...they stood and watched almost certainly because they were vastly outnumbered or because they were holding a line for tactical reasons....if you only have a limited number of resources you can only secure a finite area properly.

Having been in a psu (numbering 22) confronted by 200 rioting EDL thugs throwing bricks and drainpipes I'm glad my supervisors weren't dumb enough to try and get us to charge them....not when we were outnumbered 10-1.

18 August, 2011 16:00

Blogger Tulip said...

Yeah, outnumbered, right, no Bottle!

You failed to see that your 'outnumbered' equates to 'a target rich environment with challenging opportunities'.

But then, for some coppers, it was easier and safer to stand and watch.

You recall the time when a bloke got off his hauches and did what was right, but in those days, they were six feet and a penny tall, and proud to do the job of stopping kids from calling the shots.

Sorry, too many PC's are too 'pc' these days, and a great many, stood, and watched.

Some may have got into it, and I saw videos of manchester plod doing just that, but I saw many more vids where the coppers just wet their pants and watched it happen.

18 August, 2011 16:26

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And just how many PSU lines have you stood on, Tulip?

18 August, 2011 16:48

Blogger Tulip said...

Lets see, Nicosia 1974, Hmm, Port Stanly 1982..

No, I have not stood and watched while those I had signed up to protect, watched and worried as to why I wasn't answering a 999 call, you got me bang to rights there.

And its easy to lay the blame on the Boss not letting you get hurt, just following orders is the very lack of fibre that landed other uniformed troops in the mire.

You have the ability, and the aptitude and once had the need, to be able to think for yourselves and pull a helpless victim out of a bad situation , you were never ever trained to give up your minds and think like dummies.

18 August, 2011 16:55

Anonymous Mork said...

To get back onto the subject…
It's all about the mitigating and aggravating factors.

When riots are spreading and happening in several cities, all over the media and known to be getting organised by online means then trying to organise another one isn't just mischief, it's conspiracy to riot.
Had there not been riots happening; had they posted it a few weeks ago then I would have thought a clip-round-the-ear and a talk about being-bloody-stupid would have been enough of a punishment.
There intention was to cause a riot, and as far as I know intention can be a crime as well as action. Conspiracy to commit murder for example.

The latter case is a couple of people of previous good character taking the law into their own hands. Always a tricky subject from both a moral and legal point of view, but I think the judge got it right.
Sending them to jail wouldn't have been in anyone's interests.
The intention in this case was to teach a very nasty criminal a lesson.
It's wrong (under law), but it's not a malicious crime against an 'innocent' bystander.

18 August, 2011 17:03

Anonymous Anonymous said...


You imply you were in Nicosia 1974 and Port Stanley 1982. By that, I take it you were in the Military, possibly the RAF?

There are many differences between the way the Military and Police work. That’s why military involvement in policing NI is now seen as actually causing more trouble than it was worth.

This is a very simplistic example, but say YOU’RE in charge of 40 officers facing at least 200 rioters - with no reserve to fall back on. You charge the 200. Your 40 officer then arrest one or two people each. These 80 arrestees need to be dealt with lawfully (you can’t just handcuff them to a lamppost). So while you’re dealing with them, you are effectively leaving the streets to the complete mercy of the remaining 120 rioters. This is not a good idea!

The police, especially in London, are well aware of the dangers dealing with riots whilst being vastly outnumbered. There is a very real chance that an officer could become separated and hacked to death by the baying mob. It’s happened before and it could well have happened again.

As for the suggestion that individual officers should just go off on a tangent, even if the senior officer orders against it - have you never heard of the term ‘loose cannon’?

18 August, 2011 19:12

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very misleading summary of their sentence. They each got a 12 months suspended prison sentence as well as the fine. One of them got 200 hrs and another 200 hrs of community service as well.

18 August, 2011 20:07

Anonymous RD said...

The sentencing on the gang attack is absurd.

18 August, 2011 20:49

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think even the most bloodthirsty of the "hang em all" brigade would be a little bit taken aback if we were to shoot dead rioters or stab them to death with bayonets like in Port Stanley and I don't recollect being issued with sten guns like in Nicosia.

Where exactly where you when the riots went on? Are you curled up at home with your loot waiting for a knock at the door ;-) ?


18 August, 2011 22:13

Blogger Tulip said...

It is absurd to weigh in with the same arguement that befuddles Teresa May and Most Chief Constables. The systems that have been created over the last ten, twenty years are not the systems we need today for a current political landscape.

At the start of the riots, we watched as those who were trained for Riot Control togged up with over weight, innefective, and out of place carry armour.

You were given the wrong tools. You were dressed for a mob of coal face workers with sticks and bricks who wanted to charge at you. That was from what, twenty years ago?

Your targets were in lightweight loose clothing, with agile footwear, they outclassed you gazelle to Rhino. You know it.

There were too few of you because manning and shift control were off duty and no contingencies were in place.

I argue though, many of you, who are younger, stronger and fitter, could have dashed in with mates cover and pulled a few snots from the crowd, any three striper could have known who to challenge. But No, You listened to the voice of those above you who often have long since lost the ability to think for themselves. The rules of fair play, HASAW, Gold Command, Operational dictats, cost analysys, safety protocols, vehicle and weapon allocation, certifications. Do you think your Quarry had the same lenticular oversight to the methodology of the operation?

An early grab would have stopped it from getting off the ground. You know it.

And to hold back the Fire Crews, Just in case, well excuse me, that was the most stupid idiotic descision made in the first twenty four hours.

Any one of you, could have busted your ass and dragged a fire tender to the top of the road and opened up a 4 inch and drenched the lot of them. Yes you would have been 'told off' and been the hero on the front page. But no, I argue that many of you involved, hung back, behind your shield, and watched.

They used 'communications' to organise themselves, I bet half of you in attendance didnt even have working Airwave sets.

The had transport to rapidly egress activity zones, you had 'orders' to stand fast....

I am sorry, it doesnt take a whole lot of understanding to see you were ill prepared, under-armed, innefective and outnumbered. I thank the stars, your 'enemy' only had bricks and bottles.

Yes, Royal Air Force, and thankfully, not the RAFPol. Though I admit, they had some perks...

19 August, 2011 01:13

Blogger Tulip said...

And for the sentences, sadly, they will be for the most part, too little.

I know we have no room for them in our jails, and all we will end up doing is telling them off. I am not alone in cheering to learn a riot planner gets four years.

In that I am convinced, hard jail is a deterrent and a career stopper.

The OP is trying to balance a pov with a reality check. You know some chits that deserve a lot more than they will get because our systems are broken, and the only winners in this are the legal system, oh, and sadly, the overtime for those who were billeted away.

A good blog, but from someone who wasnt there I guess.

19 August, 2011 01:20

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So to summarise your policing qualifications and experience.....a fit fat ZILCH.

I don't tell you how to fly or keep an aircraft flying so don't presume to tell us how to police. By your logic you'd rather have 20 bobbies get a kicking trying to stop 200 looting a store than be part of the operation to prevent widespread disorder....anyone who has even policed one half decent PSU disorder knows it is not in the main about effecting arrests, that's what we have evidence gatherers for, it's about maintaining public order.

Military experience has got nothing to do with policing. Why anyone thinks military experience means you could be a half decent bobby I've no idea. It's about as relevant as having been a nursery nurse or a binman.

19 August, 2011 04:48

Anonymous PJW said...

Tulip, you sound surprised that the riot cops held back. Over a long period of time before these riots we've witnessed nothing but contempt and cynicism from the TSG and their collegues accross the country toward the innocent public. From the Harwood incident and police lies that followed to the beating they dished out to a stab victim in a Liverpool park, a police officer in Newcastle who turned out to be a rapist and got away with it for 13 years, the armed cops who shot barrister Mark Suanders (lawfully) but then made a mockery of his inquest by interjecting song titles into their testimony. The coppers who have helped NOTW with hacking. The coppers sacked a few weeks ago by Merseyside police for innapropiate behaviour during a house search. The racist scum we saw on The Secret Policeman. I could go on. These are the few who were caught out, so what else goes on that we never know about, that the IPCC works hard at to keep out of the public domain. Tulip, does it really sound as though these people give a toss about protecting the public or your life. The police in this country, whilst better than most others, is a failed organisation. Its members seem to enjoy the sense of freedom a warrant card brings but shirk the responsibility that comes with that power as and when it suits. Our streets arent safe. Let them riot.

19 August, 2011 07:11

Anonymous Ruf said...


I love the idea of "borrowing" one of Trumpton's tenders and hosing down the rioters. However I can see a couple of very minor potential problems.

Firstly, if you do that then what are they supposed to use to put the fires out with?

Secondly, given that there's no way that this would be ordered from on high, there would be absolutely no legal protection for anyone doing it. If Johnny Scrote gets knocked down by a jet of water and hurt then he won't be the one looking at criminal charges. You will.

Since the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1973 came into force you can't just stand on something high, read out the fifty word proclamation and indemnify any and all actions by anyone to disperse the rioters.

19 August, 2011 12:17

Anonymous Anonymous said...


You show a great way of taking some examples and twisting them to make them look like they represent the whole police service. You seem to believe that the police close ranks and lie all the time. In fact its the exact opposite. Its not the 70's. These days any suggestion of wrongdoing (certainly in the lower ranks) and you're out like a shot. Its so bad people wear they stab vests in the station to avoid a knife in the back.

Also your wrong on (at least) one example when you say "...the armed cops who shot barrister Mark Suanders (lawfully) but then made a mockery of his inquest by interjecting song titles into their testimony..."

This was investigated and it didn't happen. Of course, the media didn't report that bit of news did they. I wonder why!

As in any organisation, the police is made up of individuals. The majority are good, but a few are bad. For every bad example you have, there are hundreds in not thousands of excellent hard working officers doing a great job. All officers know they are accountable to the law and the IPCC for their actions.

19 August, 2011 12:32

Anonymous Anonymous said...


You imply you have military connections, so you’ll appreciate that any organisation lacking objectives and real government support can sometimes look inadequate. Add to this lack of numbers and equipment and it’s a recipe for disaster. For these reasons, the once proud British military have hardly covered themselves in glory recently.

For example:-
The Army effectively ‘abandoning’ Basra (2007).
A Royal Navy boat patrol captured by Iran without a shot fired (2007).
A British couple captured by Pirates from under the noses of the Royal Marines/Special Forces on board a British RFA ship (2009).
The US effectively having to take over Hemland Province from the British military control (ongoing).
The British Police may have initially looked underprepared and under resourced in the riots. But as soon as the real scale of the riots was realised, they mobilised within hours, shipping officers from around the UK, and sorted it out – which is more than the military did in the above examples!

But unlike you, I would not seek to blame the individual service men and women for the failure. I blame the leaders for not supporting them.

19 August, 2011 12:54

Anonymous Anonymous said...

3/10 for trolling. Must do better.
(You forgot to include the obligatory reference to De Menezes, Harry Stanley and Peach. For extra marks you could have made reference to the "murder" of Duggan or Smiley Culture)

Hope this helps your future posts.


19 August, 2011 14:31

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was that second article claiming that the victim "deserved" it? Am I to understand that the judge rewarded their excuses for a horrific assault on the grounds of "vigilante justice" by lowering their sentence?

Look, I'm all for letting judges do their job, but aren't there any checks and balances by other judges which might query this decision?

19 August, 2011 15:46

Anonymous PJW said...

Tango, I could mention Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson report, Pamela Sommerville, the hundreds of sexual harassment allegations made against serving officers by mop's and serving female officers. Or you could make a joke about police recruits dressing up as KKK members. However, you have done my job for me, De Menezes - this case highlights police incompetence; Harry Stanley - same again, surely shooting the wrong person once is careless but twice!!!! And as for Blair Peach this was such a blatant example of police brutality and cover up that it is still fresh in many minds 30+ years later. And, after the Tomlinson incident its obvious lessons have not been learnt.

19 August, 2011 16:42

Anonymous Anonymous said...

With your encyclopediac knowledge of the intricacies of every police misconduct case over the last 40 or so years I don't know why you bother reading police blogs, let alone posting on them, but can I be the first to thank you for your new, helpful, constructive and insightful comments that have certainly made me look at those incidents in a new light.


19 August, 2011 16:53

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the judges got them spot on.

The Facebook rioters were utter scrotes who were trying to coordinate widespread violence.

The "gang" were operating a bit of restorative justice after their "victim" (a scrote with many convixtions)put an autistic man into intensive care and rendered him too scared to testify.

It certainly isn't justice that but for their actions he would have got away scot free.

19 August, 2011 17:56

Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Any one of you, could have busted your ass and dragged a fire tender to the top of the road and opened up a 4 inch and drenched the lot of them. Yes you would have been 'told off' and been the hero on the front page. But no, I argue that many of you involved, hung back, behind your shield, and watched."

You are an idiot. You weren't in the military, you were in the RAF, which is a cross between BA and the boy scouts.

19 August, 2011 17:58

Blogger Kaela said...

Opens popcorn!

19 August, 2011 18:35

Anonymous Anonymous said...


No matter how good an organisation’s recruitment system is, when you recruit from the general population you naturally get a workforce which reflects that population. I am a firm believer that the majority of the population are good and decent. I also know that some are corrupt and untrustworthy. This make-up is reflected in the workforce.

Yes there has been some cases of misconduct in the police, but, if you look closely enough, what organisation does not have examples of misconduct?

Look at the many scandals in government, Parliament, military, business, banks, the medical profession, the BBC, newspapers etc.

Recently there was a case of the nurse found tampering with hospital supplies. Harold Shipman, if you remember, was a GP who killed many in his care. Do you point to every doctor and nurse and accuse them of being a murderer? Of course not.

I’ve tried to be reasonable, but one thing I have learned is that some people see everything from an ethnocentric viewpoint. No matter what you say or how reasonable your argument, they are unable or unwilling to change their opinion. Are you like this PJW?

19 August, 2011 19:14

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having looked at the second case again - whilst I appreciate why the defendants did it, it's extremely bizarre that prior to the rioting it appears that the only times that the judges would go outwith the sentencing guidelines was when they were dropping beneath them. Not a lot of comfort for the victims however distasteful they may be.


19 August, 2011 20:46

Blogger Joker said...

Tulip's judgement may be harsh, and invite a legalistic minefield, but Anonymous 19:12's answer suggests that the real problem lies with government funding, and that to be honest, once the riot gear is broken out, the police have lost. It's like the best LEO being the one who's never had to fire his gun, or the best Black Belt never having to do violence.

Or the best government never having to build more prisons...

20 August, 2011 11:49

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was lurking out of sight during the riots. Leading valiantly from behind from my call-centre (sorry! I mean :control room)


21 August, 2011 10:30

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trolled again. Ho hum, I have my very own stalker.
Out of interest Anon @1030 - what were you doing during the riots?
Did you get your new HDTV?
Have you "met the met" yet?


21 August, 2011 12:19

Anonymous PJW said...

Anon, 19 Aug, 19:14,
During the Harold Shipman case did it come about that his collegues had attempted to protect him from prosecution through lying and cover up. No. And I doubt that we will with the Stockort case either. Stop taking my argument out of context through pointess comparisons. The police are a completely different type of workforce to any other in the country and have real power over innocent and often legally naive members of the public. Therefore higher standards should be set with regards to the poeple they recruit, how closely they are watched and the penalties for misconduct. Its evident from what we see in the media that many coppers up and down the country will misbehave seemingly without fear of reproach. Why is this? Also, you mention scandals in government, military, business, banks, the medical profession, the BBC, newspapers as if they in some way excuse poor policing. Misconduct by politicians is also unnaceptable. Some of the bad press aimed at the police by the media/public can definately be traced back to bad government policy. The politicians then blame the police when their policies fail. But thats for another blog.

21 August, 2011 14:13

Anonymous Anonymous said...


You completely miss the point. Yes police have power in limited a limited way, i.e. mainly against those suspected of criminal activity. But that is a very small minority of the population and nearly everything the police do becomes, or will become, public knowledge. On the other hand, other organisations have far more power, over far more people, but in a less obvious way.

Take a Local Authority and think of all the things they do which can have an ongoing affect on peoples lives.

Banks make decisions which have can have far more impact on far more people.

The medical profession can make decisions which decide who will live and die.

Your argument appears to be based on the fact that the police have 'real power over innocent and legally naive members of the public'. Fair enough, but have the intelligence to realise that compared to the thousands of interactions the police have with the public on a regular basis, there are very few actual cases of misconduct and statistically speaking, you cannot say they represent the whole of the police service. Yet, while your attention is directed towards your perception of widespread police misconduct, you are missing the many other organisations which really can, and do, ruin peoples lives.

21 August, 2011 17:04

Anonymous PJW said...

Anon 17:04,
I briefly acknowledged wrongdoings by other organisations in my previous post. I even mention the negative impact they can have on the police. You obviously only read what you wanted to read and have taken my post out of context (again). This is, you may have noticed, a police blog. Why would I talk about the NHS?

Police officers do, in the majority of incidents conduct themselves professionally. However this does not excuse any wrongdoing. There are cliques of coppers who will act outside of the the law, and they have collegues who WILL lie for them.

You seem to suggest that a certain amount of misconduct is to be accepted. I dont see why it should be. Whether we're talking about the police, NHS, local government, parliament or any other public body you happen to mention.

22 August, 2011 11:00

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you, PJW, don’t want to be taken out of context, then don’t write out of context.

Here are a few quotes from you:

“…These are the few who were caught out, so what else goes on that we never know about, that the IPCC works hard at to keep out of the public domain.”

“Its members (police officers) seem to enjoy the sense of freedom a warrant card brings but shirk the responsibility that comes with that power as and when it suits. Our streets arent safe. Let them riot.”

“… And, after the Tomlinson incident its obvious lessons have not been learnt.”

To anyone who knows anything about policing, it’s obvious you have no first-hand knowledge of what your talking about. Quite frankly you’re boring.

22 August, 2011 14:52

Blogger staghounds said...

Back on topic, I wonder if Thomas West was ever convicted of the alleged assault?

Because Mr. Justice Compton is sort of saying that these three characters had an understandable response to the failure of Mr. Justice Compton to do what he is well paid to do in Oxfordshire.

If they did what is right, they ought to be set free.

If what they did was wrong, it was no more or less wrong because the victim was a bad man.

Is this punishment for assault, or for violating the State's monopoly on deciding whom to hurt?

25 August, 2011 18:09

Anonymous PJW said...

Anon 14:52 Well done you've done it again. What better way to take someone out of context than to pick out a few certain quotes from different paragraphs. In fact from different posts. You're lack of a comprehensive argument is whats missing. Instead you've reduced yourself to insults. tut tut

06 September, 2011 10:50

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it any wonder most people have no confidence in the UK justice system at all?

18 December, 2011 15:08


Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats
eXTReMe Tracker