It was a hope of mine, a dashed one right enough, that one of Scotland's Sundays would pick up the following interview which was broadcast on Thursday's Newsround, when it was mentioned Scotland's police were objecting to a proposal for an extension of their random drug testing programme. Someone named Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation was being interviewed about his organisation's objection. "It's nonsense, the cost of it alone is expensive and time consuming, when we should be spending on front line services, we don't even know what it entails, it hasn't been shared with the Scottish Police Federation ..." Just some of his excuses given here (at around 42 mins in.)
Sadly I doubt Calum Steele or anyone connected to the Scottish police force reads this blog but, to quote a well known TV show, Have I Got News For You.
The British military have been doing random drug testing for some years Mr Steel, from the newest recruit to the heid bummers and it appears to be effective and a very worthwhile programme. Police who handle weapons are presently randomly tested. What is wrong with the programme being extended to all police? The public would like the assurance that none of our police officers is addicted to harmful substances. Why are the police so superior to our other services or have you unspeakable worries? As far as I can see, the cost of drug testing is not excessive.
The traffic police are constantly drug testing drivers, some for no reason at all. Just a few years ago I was breathalised when parking in town mid-afternoon. I'd taken my seat belt off because it was nigh on impossible to turn and see out the back window with it on. Stupidly I didn't notice the police car sitting across the road tucked behind other cars. When they approached I was astonished and told them so, but they didn't like me answering back and the result was to insist I breathe into their wee machine. All this was an intimidating tactic to create as much embarrassment for me as possible and of course to show their power.
So Mr Steele, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Making a stooshie about the extension of the present policy doesn't show you or your members in a very good light. If you honestly think there's not one of your members who is addicted to alcohol, cannabis, heroin or other drugs who hasn't slipped through your present net, you should not be holding the position you do.
Your organisation should be setting an example and this stance will not be acceptable to the public. Think again and while you're at it - grow up.
Posts
24 comments:
Many moons ago, I was in the Royal Navy. Whilst based at HMS Sultan, I had a somewhat hippy girlfriend who gave me some joss sticks which I occasionally burned in the mess.
This came to the attention of the Navy Regs (police). One day I was escorted from the workshops to my mess to witness my locker being searched. They took everything apart. Things like my ashtray, boot polish, toothpaste etc were sent for analysis. My uniform and clothes were taken apart at the seams with razor blades and I was made to strip. My boots had the soles removed. I was left wearing a towel and had to give blood and urine samples.
They found nothing and I tested negative of course, but I had to replace my uniform & clothes out of my own pocket. There was no question of compensation.
I never once complained officially, (although I gave them some lip at the time), because I accepted that drugtaking was incompatible with my job.
To hear this whiney cop looking for special treatment makes my blood boil. If your members have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Isn't that what we're told when the police support ID cards and DNA databases?
Guess what Plod - you exist to serve the community, not the other way around.
Morning Alan. What an experience but then, I suppose many went through that over the years.
That's the word, whiney. That's what caught my ear, his unquestionable 'how very dare you' attitude. Interesting to know that's the standard of representation the police have for themselves. You'd think they could do a lot better.
Like your blog Alan. I've put you in my reader.
The biggest waste of money concerning policing in Scotland is the ridiculous fact that we have eight forces for a population of 5 million. That is eight Chief Constables, eight HQs etc, etc, etc. In other words a huge gravy train. Compare that with Greater London and a population of over 7 million with only the Metropolitan to police it ( I exclude the City of London Police as their jurisdiction contains less than 10,000 population). They are probably worried that half their officers are on some sort of illegal substance that they pinched from the evidence room anyway.
Oh S/R are you not allowed to remove your seat belt when performing a manoeuvre involving reverse, such as parking? I often do when parking the Rolls.
Morning Munguin. Who's against us having one police force? Aye you're right, the SPF.
They told me that my car had moved and when it's in motion I was required by law to have a seat belt on. That cost me £60 if I remember rightly.
I find it hard to park the Jag Munguin, but slightly easier than my wee thing, because the Jag has good reversing sensors. :)
I really don't think that what they told you is true. I am sure the latest regulations concerning seatbelts are those introduced in 2006 and that they allow you to remove your seatbelt to perform a manoeuvre involving reverse. That would of course allow you to actually move your vehicle while not wearing the belt either forwards or backwards. I know that police often just say whatever they like to get you to agree with them but in actual fact only have a basic understanding of the law itself. I personally would have contested the ticket. A bit like Ted Brocklebank MSP who contested his ticket for using a mobile phone while driving through Cupar. He won because the JP (probably a friend from the Royal and Ancient) ruled that while he was holding the phone in his hand this did not mean he was using it. I’m sure you could employ a similar argument of while you did not have the seatbelt on this did not mean that you were not actually using it.
LOL. Munguin, I'm surprised you actually do your own driving. Was the chauffeur on day off?
With regard to the drugs thing, I would say my grandmother would have the right expression here.
Whit's guid tae gie's no ill tae tak.
"Exemptions from seat belt wearing
(c) a person driving a vehicle while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;"
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/seatbelts.htm
Oh Alan, thanks so much for that. Do you think I'm a bit late to protest? It was about 8 - 10 years ago now.
Tris, you should know that the likes of Munguin only uses their Rolls part of the day. Usually in mornings so I'm told, although I've long argued Dundonians always used to have morning rolls. Pathetic I know lol. Waiting to watch Andrew Murray play at 2pm and trying hard to avoid doing any gardening. :)
LOL.... way too smart for me on a Sunday SR....
Half an hour's gardening won't do you any harm!
(I was initially going to refer you to what AWJT said. They had probably wanted your autograph.) To the concerned police officer, I would wittily riposte: "If you've got nothing to hide..." And we would have a laugh, no doubt. (And get their DNA on a database at the same time.)
But a single police force? Oh dear. That is such a bad idea. Personally, I think SPF is too big at the moment dealing with everything from a missing peat from a stack on Islay to mass disorder at an Old Firm-type match. More police; more "services"...
Ah Mek I wish! My autograph isn't worth more than the value of the cheque it signs these days.
I'm with Munguin on this and do think we should have centralisation. Having separate administrations etc is such a waste of money although I'm sure there's been talk in the past few years of having a centralised admin setup or something similar.
I was just about to go and plant some more salad seeds when flash flooding started tris, complete with hailstones the size of my pinkie. It's my lucky day. :) Super match, hope you all watched it.
There was a story about this in Saturday's Courier and it said that a Tayside officer had recently resigned after a positive test for a class-B drug (cannabis).
Interestingly, the article seemed to say that the secretary of the Tayside SPF branch supported random testing:
"Mr Gibbs reiterated his federation’s support for drug testing, but said he was disappointed that ACPOS had not consulted the police officers’ union before announcing their plans."
Did you listen to the clip Stuart? It was the attitude of the speaker which caught my attention. Yes he was upset because they hadn't been consulted, but quite honestly, to go on radio and with a 'it's no' fair' attitude isn't what I expect from the SPF.
He didn't seem in the least supportive of the new proposal.
(I never saw that article Stuart but my excuse is that Saturday was a busy day).
I tend to agree with Callum Smith. The money to implement this will come out of police budgets and will therefore reduce the amount available for frontline policing. If there was any evidence to suggest that drug abuse was a widespread problem in the police force (as it was in the military) then I could see the argument. However there is no sucb evidence. All the evidence suggests that drug use among police officers is lower than among the general population.
I also think we need to be clear what is being suggested by those behind this move. It is not just the police who will be affected if they have their way.
Chief Superintendent Valerie McHoull, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, is quoted saying this in the Herald:
"This is not just a police issue, this is a societal issue and it is something that you might consider progressing across the whole public sector.
"If all organisations, public and private, including ultimately universities and sports clubs, introduced testing perhaps we could make more of an impact in the war against drugs - from the demand end rather than supply.
"Had the private sector had mandatory or even possibly optional drug testing a decade ago then the proliferation of cocaine use among young professionals might have been averted."
Morning Indy. Where's your evidence that drug abuse was/is a widespread problem in the military any more than in any other public service? There is no evidence available. There are figures regarding military drug abuse but where are the figures about our police service? Can't find any. That would mean one thing to me - there has been no total random drug testing of the police or they would be happy to publish the figures and show the public there is no problem.
The military were pro-active and aware of certain circumstances which were:
Many military personnel have forced to live in military quarters which do not provide the average freedoms given to the likes of the police, who can go home at the end of their duties and have a private life.
Military personnel depend on each other far more than any other public service and trust is essential. If your best pal is abusing drugs to the detriment of themselves and the danger of others, then you too have a responsibility to speak out. That happened. I have by doubts that it would happen in any other service.
In recent years, soldiers (I can't speak for the Air Force or Navy) have been known to have taken drugs in order to get an immediate discharge. Most of these cases had never taken drugs previously and the reason for their action was to escape the hellish conditions in Iraq. They weren't only young recruits who acted in this way, some were longer serving personnel who could or would no longer be treated with disdain by the Westminster government. A dishonourable discharge for drug taking was thought to be better than working six month's notice.
So these actions radically augmented drug abuse results within the army. Thankfully the matter was addressed and it was decided random drug testing was the answer. I have yet to hear any objections to it and it has now been procedure for some years.
I wouldn't object to CS McHoull's suggestion. Personally I think it should have happened before now. It's common knowledge certain American companies randomly drug test their staff and have done for many years.
Given that drug testing was brought into the army in 1998 it would be difficult to provide figures on that. But my understanding is that the Army not only had a serious drug problem, it continues to do so. Even with compulsory random drug testing the equivalent of a battalion of soldiers are dismissed each year (although the rules have been changed so that dismissal is not automatic even for class A drugs).
http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N47616079DFD16/
That suggests to me that random drug testing has not been particularly effective in deterring illegal drug use.
The main problem in the police I would suggest will be alcohol dependency or abuse - not cocaine. Alcohol will not be tested for however, as it is a legal drug. They only test for illegal drugs. That’s the problem with this whole drug testing approach in my view. It leaves out the drug that causes the greatest damage of all.
Hello Indy. A FOI question would easily retrieve figures from 1998 but I'm not going to that trouble to prove a point. My point was - how can the police say they don't have a substance abuse problem when they have never tested?
I already explained to you why the army figures have increased in recent years, and especially in cocaine which stays in the system whilst heroin is out of the system within hours. The random testing has been a great success within army circles and it is very effective.
As I stated previously, the conditions many soldiers live in 24x7 are extreme compared with other services and some eventually find it too much and turn to some form of substance.
The police do have the ability to test any officer who is thought to be under the influence of alcohol. They just don't use that. Any employer is entitled to ask for an employee to be tested for excessive alcohol in the blood stream as is shown at times by aircraft businesses.
I'm sure you'll find there is recent legislation saying that no person is permitted to be under the influence of alcohol in work situations.
However, I know the police turn a blind eye to alcohol problems in the hope that they'll disappear. No point in having legislation if it's not going to be used is there?
But the police do test subrosa. Grampian Police has been doing random drug testing for 10 years with no positive results.
In every other force new recruits are tested and then randomly tested over the first two years of service and so is anyone who works with firearms and the drugs squad. Rolling that out to all officers - 17,000 + - would carry a significant cost when no case has been made that it is necessary.
Re the alcohol issue - of course anyone police officer caught drinking at work could be sacked on the spot and quite rightly. The issue is what people do in their off-hours. That is what they are testing for.
Indy, yes I know they do limited random testing.
I'm at a bit of loss here as to why you say there is no significant case to say rolling it out over the whole of the police force is necessary.
They have never tested the whole of the police force so obviously there's no significant case.
Indy, I was talking about people under the influence of alcohol at work and not just those who drink at work.
The military get tested for what they do in their off-hours so why shouldn't it apply to other services? Of course the military have far less off hours than any other public service and also, as I stated before, they're a captive group.
My argument is, as you'll be aware, why should the military be treated differently to the police or fire services? You said earlier drugs were a serious problem within the military. Considering the British military numbers were 425,500 in 2006 (see http://tiny.cc/rNAUY), their drug abuse numbers, with the exceptions I've mentioned, were possibly no different to other public services if they had been tested.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I think, much as I've enjoyed your comments. It is my firm belief that all our public services should be treated equally.
Subrosa if there is a case for introducing random drug testing in the police I am quite willing to hear it but so far I have not. There is no evidence that drug use is a problem - indeed the only force which currently carries out random testing (Grampian) has not had a positive result in 10 years.
The fact that there is random drug testing in the armed forces does not mean that it is either necessary or desirable in the police as well. If your argument is that the military should be treated the same as the police or fire services you could equally argue that the terms and conditions which apply to the police/fire services should be applied to the military, not the other way around.
I simply don't see a case for bringing in random drug testing unless there is evidence that there is a problem with drug use. If that was the basis however you would be introducing random drug testing into the TV, music, sport and film industries, not public services.
So presumably the argumemt is that police oficers should be tested because they occupy a particularly responsible position. The same could be said of teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers. The costs could mount and mount
I am in principle against the introduction of any measure which has a significant cost attached to it where there is no evidence that it is necessary.
Introducing random testing without a solid reason for doing so would simply take up valuable resources with no real benefit as far as I can see.
I would hope that when the measure comes before Parliament, as I understand it will, some of those questions will be asked and hopefully answered.
Hi Indy, as I've said previously many private employers use random drug testing. Sport and film industries, unless they are funded with taxpayers' money, wouldn't be classed as public services.
I really don't understand why you don't see my viewpoint. 769 cases of drug abuse in the army in 2006 out of a total of 425,500 personnel isn't excessive by any calculation and I've explained why the increase in recent years.
Random testing ought to be stopped in the military then and the cases of cannabis abuse would fall quickly.
I look forward to the debate.
Post a Comment