Someone sent a posting to a legal group (of which I am a member) of an article by Sir Hugh Orde, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, England to the Guardian today.
Sir Hugh’ article is in response to David Cameron’s call for more extreme measures – such as water cannons and batons – to be taken by the police in order to deal with the current rioting in England. That article is published in the Guardian's website.
I would like to reproduce what Sir Hugh says as it demonstrate an approach to policing as yet unknown to all of us.
First and foremost he says:
“One of the greatest strengths of British policing is that operational decision-making is conducted not by politicians, but by professional chief police officers who have spent their whole career in policing. While David Cameron today referred to some of the more extreme measures available to us, they are not new, and responsibility for their deployment remains entirely a matter for chief officers. There can be no confusion here at all; it is a fact that we cannot be ordered to police in a certain way but we will be held robustly accountable for what we choose to do or not do.”
On the usage of water cannons and batons, this is what he says:
“As one of only two officers in the country to have ordered the use of water cannon and baton rounds in public-order policing, my professional judgment is it would be the wrong tactic, in the wrong circumstances at this moment. Both require an extremely precise situation. The use of water cannon, while logistically difficult, works against large stationary crowds throwing missiles at police or, as I witnessed in Northern Ireland, at other communities. It achieves distance between police and unlawful crowds that is often vital.
Utilising baton rounds, an even more severe tactic, is fundamentally to protect life. When I ordered their use, again in Northern Ireland, my officers were being attacked by blast bombs and live fire. I would always use both with a heavy heart, but it is always an issue of proportionality.”
The rationale for policing which he takes is as follows:
“What we have seen so far is not soft policing, and although I understand the enthusiasm of politicians and communities for robust measures, excessive force will destroy our model of policing in the long term. What we must hang on to in all of this is the British model of policing, premised on human rights and the minimum use of force. ” (emphasis is mine)
This is a quotable quote:
“We police with consent and must be professional, proportionate, fair and justifiable to the public at all times.”
Meanwhile, back at home, our Deputy IGP was quoted by a report saying:
“…we are able to avoid these scary and tragic scenes (referring to the London riots) from erupting here in our beloved country.”
“These are the nightmares that we are fighting hard to avoid and prevent. Street protest should always be avoided as we will never know what it can turn into.”
I don’t know which approach is better. There are always two sides to the coin. In Malaysia right now, there are two extremes sandwiching a small middle section.
I will let Malaysians decide which one they prefer.