Met police firearms

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Visit from Maggie, 11, whose father was killed on duty prompts announcement.

Maggie Henry was made chief constable for a day

A force has promised that anyone assaulted on duty will receive contact from a chief officer to check on their welfare.

Bedfordshire Police has changed the policy and dubbed it ‘Maggie’s Law’ after the daughter of PC John Henry, killed on duty in Luton in 2007, spent at day at its headquarters.

According to a statement from the force, 11-year-old Maggie Henry wants to help the force “look after our police officers, so that they can look after everyone else”.

The chief officer team will now take the lead on checking that personnel who have been attacked get the support they need.

Bedfordshire Police had already adopted the seven point plan on police assaults, first developed in Hampshire, which commits to treating assaulted officers as victims of crime.

Chief Constable Jon Boutcher said: “Without question, an assault of any kind should never be considered ‘part of the job’.

“Our workforce walks into danger when others walk away and sadly verbal and physical assaults are becoming commonplace – but that doesn’t mean it is acceptable.

“Our officers should be afforded the support they need and deserve. This means they are treated the same way as any other victim of crime, they feel valued and that those who attack police officers are not dealt with lightly.”

Bedfordshire Police Federation Chairman, Jim Mallen added: “Looking after officers and staff members who have been assaulted while doing their duty should be a primary consideration for police leaders.

“The Police Federation brought into Bedfordshire the seven point plan and Maggie's law seems a natural extension to highlight to those assaulted that we care about them and will do our utmost to support them.”

PCC Kathryn Holloway said she has raised the issue of short sentences for people who attack officers with the government. 

“I never want another family in this county to experience what Maggie Henry and her family have had to go through,” she added.

“In my view, an attack on a police officer is not the same as an assault on any other member of the public, since police are standing on the front-line between those who keep the law and those who want to undermine it.

“An attack on a single officer is an assault on society itself and should be met with the toughest penalty possible.”

View on Police Oracle

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

So all chief officers should, but given the numbers of officers assaulted they won't have time to do anything else.

[Techie1 + 2,024]

15 minutes ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

So all chief officers should, but given the numbers of officers assaulted they won't have time to do anything else.

Was thinking exactly the same, given how many officers are assaulted each day. Not good. 

But good to see some interaction from the Chiefs - and calling them personnel is better than resources... 

[Beaker 817]

Nice idea, I had a CI ring me when I was involved in a scuffle where I had minor injuries.  Then my S/INSP, then my S/SGT, and the Inspector who was on duty.  Seemed excessive in my case, but if you're required to attend hospital then at least someone is checking on you afterwards. 

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

1 minute ago, Techie1 said:

But good to see some interaction from the Chiefs - and calling them personnel is better than resources... 

I know, strange making officers sound almost human. Part of the issue is that the public, the media, the judicial system, the government just see the 'Police' as a body corporate and not the individual behind the mask so to say. So when an officer is injured it becomes a corporate statistic, not a serious offence because the individual element to the assault is overridden by it being seen as an offence against the body corporate.

[Mac7 808]

Showing they care from the sanctuary of their offices!

[NCFPA 79]

This article is misleading, Op Hampshire is already in place nationwide and one of the points is duty SMT make contact. I can't see any rank above chief super making contact unless it is very serious. Have only been injured once thankfully prior to op Hampshire and had a phone call personally from CI Ops.

[Hyphen + 693]

Yet another gimmick really and most likely viewed as a tick box exercise by most of them. Just general support day to day would do the trick for most officers.

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

When asked by a Chief Officer, "What can we do for you" How about the reply, "When I call for urgent assistance you could make sure that there enough officers for someone to attend" I wonder how that would go down? 

Whenever any of my officers was assaulted or injured I would always see them and check that they were alright. If they were at hospital  I always made a personal visit to ensure over their health and well being. It is one of those basic actions in supervision, or management, however you want to term it. In the past I have known Sir James Anderton visit officers in hospital but never knew any of his successors to do that. 

[Hades + 1,693]

5 hours ago, Hyphen said:

Yet another gimmick really and most likely viewed as a tick box exercise by most of them. Just general support day to day would do the trick for most officers.

You can't do right for doing wrong as a leader in the police....

Officers complain that nobody cares when they get assaulted.... Chiefs respond that they do care and they'll personally be in touch to see how you are and it's criticised as a box ticking exercise and insinuated that they dont actually give a toss! 

It reminds me of the sort of unfair nonsense I near all the time from officers criticising other teams or managers based on nothing but speculation and inaccurate rumour - there's barely ever a hint of regret at unfairly criticising people when it's pointed out how unreasonable it is, either.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Hades

[SimonT + 1,185]

The glaring issue is that they haven't been doing it anyway. So if it's a mandatory requirement,  it is a tick box exercise. 

"hello PC according to my spreadsheet Jones, who I have never met, despite working in the same building as you for 5 years. You have just been woken up after a night shift so I can ask how you are doing. No I don't want to talk about the lack of resources that led to this or how long it took for backup to get to you. If you could just say you are OK, that would be super. I have a meeting. "*

Some command are good,  some are not. But the coordinated national outcry and pressure to increase resources and proper sentences is completely absent. 

If we were train drivers the union would close stations even faster than the government until we got what we needed. 

[Hyphen + 693]

@Hades I do take your point and actually agree with you. It often irritates me when people do criticise other people without the full facts etc or are generally negative.

With regards to this debate specifically though where is the support generally? None of these senior officers are speaking out publically 'telling it how it is' regarding the lack of resources, the lack of public support, the lack of government support, lack of funding, defending against the nonsense from the media, just look at TASER and spit hoods. All of this is far more important to front line officers than asking if I am okay after the assault happens and then going back to normal. That's what I am trying to get at.

An example about resourcing is the desire to persevere with single crewing on a regular basis with little back up and a stick and some spray. What could possibly go wrong? And when it does go wrong no one seems to learn from this!

Some bosses are really great and passionate about their teams. I have no doubt these bosses don't need this scheme to tell them to look after the welfare of their officers. The ones that do need some sort of reminder probably do treat it as a tick box exercise.

 

[Mac7 808]

I do agree Hades but with this particular article it seems the chief officer team has almost been forced into this new approach to welfare. Why has is taken for a cop to die before "policy" is changed. And why is there even a policy? It should be mandatory or a culture amongst forces that chief officers have the welfare of their troops in the forefront of their minds.

[miffy + 74]

I don't want a Chief Officer who I've never met to check on my welfare. I'd want my Duty Inspector for district and my sergeants to check up on me as I know them  and have interacted with them, rather than meet with a Chief Officer who can only give me 10 mins of their time to talk about me being assaulted. I'd also want to chat with the OIC dealing with the offender, knowing that s/he has been charged and sent to court for assaulting me. If was serious like my colleague breaking her wrist, I'd like to chat with the Chief Supt, but anything above that is over kill really, unless the Chief Officer Team is to apologise for failings/whatnots.

When I was assaulted, I spoke to two Inspectors, one who offered me a corporate hug and other just wanted to know what happened and tried to reassure me. I think most of all, is someone from Occupational Health or in charge of assaults on police to give me a phone call two weeks after the event to check up on me and update them on any injuries or issues after the event.  Few days of pain and a quick trip to A+E, found out I chipped my elbow. No clue who to tell or how to update them

[Ether + 1,401]

Loads of negative comments here and not for no reason, but leaving that to one side, surely the more chief officers have personal exposure to the issues officers are facing, including being assaulted is only a good thing to highlight the issue. After all no issue was ever resolved without it being discussed and if that conversation is among chief officers with the sway to influence the justice system all the better. 

I fear this is a 'Damned if they do, damned if they dont' scenario