FREE SUPPLEMENT

Bobbies, peelers, busies, rozzers, pigs, fuzz, filth. The feelings expressed by our many names for the Old Bill (there’s yet another one) range from mild affection to deep loathing. From showing kindness to a five-year-old girl to beating up a suspect in police custody, the public face of the police, as illustrated in the contributions to this supplement, can be read in myriad ways. This is partly a reflection of their varied and complex role in our society, from breaking the news of a death to an unsuspecting relative to hunting down a serial killer. It also reflects a degree of inconsistency on our parts: many of us are only too happy for the police to restrict the behaviour of others, especially if it makes our lives quieter or easier, but are not so sure of their value if they get in the way of what we want to do. Yet even those of us who consider the police far from ideal generally accept they are necessary. This acceptance, however, doesn’t stretch to everything they may do. Their performance in a host of cases - the miners’ strike and the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence being highly visible ones - have embedded deep suspicion of the force, and of government moves to intervene in and shape it. Most of us agree that the police would benefit from change, but would we share David Blunkett’s idea of change without reservation? It’s a question that this supplement opens up for investigation. The persistence of the Home Office suggests it’s too late for the reforms to be prevented. Only with the passage of time, and crime, will their true character be detected.

If you have problems viewing this file please download Adobe Acrobat Reader.