Crime and victim campaigners have savaged the Met Police’s new 44-question handcuff policy, calling it ’embarrassing’ and treating trained police officers like children’.
According to the Centre for Crime Prevention, PCc would not be granted the luxury of time by crooks to ponder the nearly 50 considerations included in their guidance.
The document raised more questions than it answered, including one about the leadership of under-fire Commissioner Cressida.
MailOnline spoke with David Spencer (research director) at the centre. He said: “Plenty are people of opinion that police priorities tend toward the wellbeing of criminals instead of the law abiding general and that this will help to reinforce that perception.
It is common to treat trained officers as children, and it is very patronizing for the majority of officers who arrest potentially dangerous suspects each day.
Police will rarely have the time to ask 44 questions of suspects in most arrests. The police are still relying on intuition and their training. This is why such questions are necessary.
‘It is difficult to imagine how Cressida Dick’s time as Commissioner could get much more embarrassing for the Met, but this policy is certainly doing its best.
“There are still serious questions about Cressida’s competence to run the Met. Proclamations such as this will further undermine her authority.”
A new policy document also included the Alphabet-themed ABCDE handcuffing
At the CST Business Lunch (Community Security Trust), Commissioner Cressida Dixon at Nobu
Handcuffing policy requires officers to ask 44 questions prior to arresting suspects. It also details the process in a ABC guide format for children.
Scotland Yard has published a 25-page report detailing the complex decision making process.
David Spencer was the research director for the Centre for Crime Prevention. He outlined the policy.
Official policy stipulates nearly 50 questions police officers need to consider when using restraints issued by the police.
The following questions are asked: “What might go wrong?” (and also, what can work well?)What is going on?And, what do you not know?’.
You might also want to think about whether you should take immediate action. What would the victims or communities affected think of me?
They are all from the College of Policing’s National Decision Model and are now part of the official equipment policy.
We don’t know what Met’s prior policy was regarding the use of police restraint tactics.
After complaints by the black community, the new rules were created.
A review was conducted into handcuffing individuals within the Metforce area of London
An alphabet-themed handcuffing guide is featured, which warns the user to “Always ask suspect if your cuffs too tight”.
This includes the recommendation to “always double lock the handcuffs”.
After a thorough review by Matt Twist, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Met Communications, the Met published yesterday’s new policy.
Industry insiders and former police officers have slammed the alphabet-style guide, with former Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley warning it was indicative of the ‘weakness of senior police leadership’.
He told GB News: ‘Frankly, it’s an example of the ineptitude, the pusillanimous, the weakness of decision-making that we now see with senior police leadership.
“Police officers who decide to use force and handcuffs must think about a number of things. It comes down to this: Is this right? And can my options be protected?”
‘What we’ve now see happen is something that’s going to affect three groups of people.
It is likely to deter police officers from arresting or using force. Nothing is more frustrating than getting officers to resolve confrontations.
It’s easy to fall back. Motivating a police officer is the hardest thing.
The second is that the public will be able to ask: “What is this?”
‘The third thing is that people who are baddies will have an opportunity to be outers.
Met Commissioner Cressida Dick said of the force’s new policy: ‘My number one priority remains tackling violent crime and keeping people safe from street crime – which is blighting the lives of too many young people.
“Alongside all that, I set out to increase trust and confidence among communities in their police force.
‘We know that not all communities have the same level of trust in us – I am determined to change that.
The handcuffing evaluation could not be completed without the help of frontline officers, members of the community and others. They are all greatly appreciated for their valuable honesty and time.
Following a Met Commissioner Cressida Dick’s 2019 review into handcuffs used before arrests, this policy was adopted.
This was in response to complaints that black communities were being unfairly targeted.
The Met said the review would make sure the tactic, for which there is a sound legal basis in some circumstances, was justified and recorded on each occasion.
It fed in consultation responses from young black men aged between 16 to 25 years-old.
Met spokeswoman stated that the launch of this policy which addresses all aspects of using handcuffs is the last recommendation of the 2020 review.
“Officers already receive additional legal training and increased public safety training with a stronger emphasis on de-escalation. They also get more input from the community to better understand how the officers and citizens experience encounters in London.
Last October a highly criticial review of the Met’s use of stop and search powers has revealed officers stopped two black men after they were seen ‘fist bumping,’.
Independent Office for Police Conduct reviewed the case and found that officers suspected the couple had recently completed a deal for drugs.
The investigation found that handcuffs were used almost in all cases where other strategies could have de-escalated the encounter. Officers also did not use bodycam video at the beginning of any interaction with members of the public.
The IOPC stated that their review’mirrors the concerns’ raised in Capital by residents.
Sal Naseem was the regional director. He stated that there had been a failure to understand from officers why discriminatory actions were being made.