The Inspector Calls

He assured me that the three sets of police talked to each other prior to the raid and had indeed done a risk-assessment exercise a couple of days before the raid itself. I asked whether that assessment included taking into account who was likely to be in the house, and he confirmed that it did. He said they were unaware that Grandma lived in the house.

It strikes me that the communication between the different sets of police could not have been that good. The local police were aware that Grandma lived there, as they had attended an incident less than two months earlier, where Grandma had called the police to the address. Indeed a black woman officer who had attended the earlier incident appeared whilst the search was taking place to check on Grandma’s well being. It was apparent from her demeanour that she was disquieted by what had taken place.

The Inspector’s reasoning on this matter also strikes me as odd. If the police thought the only residents were Mum and Son, why is relevant whether Grandma lived there or not. Is an armed raid more acceptable when it is only on a single mum and her teenage son? The Inspector denied that the youth had arrived at the scene before the armed officers went in, but after they had already entered the property.

I asked him about the reluctance of his officers to be photographed and videoed in the conduct of their ‘duty’. He would not condemn them for telling me to turn off the camera, but said he could understand why the officers so instructed me. He asserted that such photos and videos could be ‘unhelpful’ in an investigation as they could be used in a ‘biased’ way. I suggested that this may just be the police being publicly accountable for their actions. He disagreed.

I also pointed out that the officer who told me put the camera away opened with this line. He therefore must have assumed [if the above explanation is true] that I was there for the purpose of recording for biased purposes. The officer made it clear, that from his point of view, it was not a debate. I think this speaks volumes about the police attitude to the residents of Pitsmoor and working class communities in general. Needless to say I find this explanation unsatisfactory at best, insulting and patronizing is probably nearer the mark. It also raises a whole other debate [which I will not go into here] about the press recording the activities of public servants.

He also confirmed to me that in addition to the armed officers I could see from my house, there were a further five on Nottingham Street [at the front of the address]. A total of twelve officers with firearms.

I find myself very concerned about this incident. Even after talking to the Inspector [who was very upfront and accommodating] for twenty minutes I am still totally unconvinced that the raid was necessary and that the police had any real clue about what they were doing. The raid was in my opinion disproportionately aggressive, ill-conceived, based on bad information and with little prior thought to the detrimental effects it would have on those involved. During our conversation Inspector Ekuburi remarked that I was remarkably well informed. I said he shouldn’t be surprised as the people who live in our little bit of Pitsmoor are good neighbours to each other, we talk to and care about each other. I knew from the moment I looked out of my window on that Friday morning that something wrong was happening on my doorstep.

Community policing is an oxymoron. Even if we bypass the debate about whether such a thing is even desirable, the police state that they want the community to trust and respect them. The police must surely acknowledge that if they want these things, there are much better ways of doing it than making people afraid by unwarranted armed excursions into their homes.

I forgot to ask the Inspector how to claim for my garden bench that was broken by two officers standing on it :-).