OFFICIAL
PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESPONSE REPORT
Shape our future - a consultation on how
British Transport Police should organise its
criminal investigations business area.
March 2017
1
OFFICIAL
CONTENTS
1. Summary .............................................................................................................. 3
2. Consultation process ............................................................................................ 4
2.1. Consultation activities
2.2. Consultation responses
3. Prioritising crimes for investigation........................................................................ 5
4. Responding to threat, harm and complexity .......................................................... 8
5. Coordinating our response to sexual offences on the railway ............................. 11
6. Tackling violence against railway staff ................................................................ 15
7. Incidents where someone has died or been harmed on the railway ................... 17
8. Preventing and detecting crimes that happen more often than others ................ 19
9. Impact on equality, diversity and human rights ................................................... 20
10. Next steps ........................................................................................................... 21
11. Appendix A – list of all responses received from members of the public……......22
2
OFFICIAL
1.
SUMMARY
1.1.
In October 2016, we at British Transport Police (BTP) opened a public
consultation asking for views about how we can best organise and use our
police officers and police staff to protect the public, deliver a quality service for
victims and witnesses of crime and bring offenders to justice, within the
budgetary constraints we have. This was part of a process known as the
Crime Review, which examined the parts of BTP that deal with criminal
investigations, with the aim of ensuring we have the right people, in the right
place, at the right time, and the flexibility we need to deliver the best possible
service, now and in the future.
1.2.
The public consultation, called ‘Shape our future – a consultation on how
British Transport Police should organise its criminal investigations business
area’, ran for eight weeks. It opened on 12 October 2016 and closed on 7
December 2016.
1.3.
Seventy-three individuals or organisations responded to the online
consultation questionnaire. Six individuals/organisations contacted us directly
to provide feedback. Out of 111 stakeholders we contacted as part of the
consultation, 19 feedback forms were given to us.
1.4.
This report summarises the main themes highlighted in the consultation
responses we received, and answers some of the questions that were asked.
It also outlines what will happen next in the Crime Review process. We have
taken on board all of the feedback we received as part of the public
consultation and appreciate the time respondents took to give us their views.
Before the public consultation began, we considered feedback we had already
received from our police officers and police staff, members of the public and
stakeholders, and amended some of our proposals to take this into account.
The amended proposals were included in the public consultation and are what
we asked the public to give us their views on.
As a result of the amendments that were made to the proposals before the
public consultation began, we believe we had addressed many of the
concerns that people had about the original proposals. Therefore, we don’t
propose to make any significant changes to the proposals included in the
public consultation and will be moving ahead to start implementing them in
early 2017. We plan to add some further enhancement to our approach to
tackling sexual offences and this is outlined in section 5.
1.5.
We anticipate that the introduction of the new crime allocation policy based on
threat, harm and complexity and the introduction of the new teams will start in
April 2017 and be completed before the end of the year.
3
OFFICIAL
2.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
2.1.
Consultation activities
2.1.1. The public consultation, called ‘Shape our future – a consultation on how
British Transport Police should organise its criminal investigations business
area’, ran for eight weeks. It opened on 12 October 2016 and closed on 7
December 2016.
2.1.2. The consultation document was published on our website in English and
Welsh language formats. We announced the opening of the public
consultation on our website homepage, on our Twitter, Facebook, Instagram
and LinkedIn channels, and via the media through a press release.
2.1.3. Visitors to the website were directed to respond to the consultation questions
through an online questionnaire in English or Welsh, or by printing out a
feedback form, completing their responses and posting it back to us.
Respondents were able to answer as many or few questions as they liked.
2.1.4. We asked 22 of our senior managers to help make people aware of the
consultation and encourage them to take part. They contacted 111 individuals
or organisations who make up the railway community to tell them about the
proposals. These included passenger groups, charities and special interest
groups, train operating companies, unions and government departments.
2.1.5. We were also happy to receive responses by post or email.
2.2.
Consultation responses
2.2.1. The consultation process resulted in these outcomes:

73 people completed all or part of the online questionnaire

Out of the 111 individuals or organisations contacted by our senior
managers, 35 participated in a face-to-face meeting and provided some
form of response

6 people contacted the project team directly to provide their response.
2.2.2 Thank you to everyone who participated in the consultation process and
provided a response.
4
OFFICIAL
3.
PRIORITISING CRIMES FOR INVESTIGATION
3.1.
The proposal
3.1.1. We proposed to change the way we decide which police officers will
investigate which crimes and apply this to the whole of BTP. Crimes would be
prioritised for investigation based on the threat and harm they cause or could
cause and the complexity of the investigation. This would result in a new
crime allocation policy with crimes being allocated to one of four tiers for
investigation.
3.1.2. The consultation asked:
Question 1
In delivering a quality service to victims of crime, we abide by the Victims’
Code, which sets out the levels of service that can be expected. This includes
being kept informed of how the case is progressing and being given the
opportunity to make a victim personal statement explaining the impact the
crime has had.
We want to make sure crimes are allocated to police officers for investigation
in a way that guarantees victims and witnesses across the country will receive
the same quality service no matter where they are. Is there anything else we
should consider that would help improve our crime allocation policy and
ensure a consistently high standard of investigation?
Question 2
We think priority should be given to investigating crimes that cause the most
harm. Is there anything else we should consider when assessing the threat
and harm crimes cause or could cause and how complex they are?
3.2.
Key themes
3.2.1. Forty-three respondents answered question 1 and 44 answered question 2.
3.2.2. Many of the respondents said they felt the proposals are sound and, if
delivered correctly, would have a positive impact.
Some respondents questioned why we were carrying out a public
consultation.
‘Are you asking "Tell us how to do our job"? Surely you have the policing
expertise to decide this yourselves?’
Whilst we pride ourselves in our professionalism and specialist policing
expertise, we are open to new ideas and interested in hearing the views of the
people we serve.
Carrying out a public consultation allowed us to explain our proposals in a
clear and transparent way and gain an understanding of whether they are
supported or not. Like other police forces, we police with consent. To do this
effectively we must take into account the views of the people we serve and
recognise that there will be differences of opinion.
5
OFFICIAL
3.2.3. Other respondents questioned why we are proposing to change at all, with
some suggesting that the existing structure including units dedicated to
investigating specific types of crime in central London should be retained as
they feel this would provide a better investigatory service.
‘Please exercise extreme caution. British Transport Police have an
exceptional reputation which is not worth losing for anything. I am not at all
sure why the current system needs to change.’
‘I feel dedicated teams are required to investigate crimes for
customers/victims to be treated fairly…’
We are proud of the services we deliver, but we believe we can do better. In
order to improve, we must review and change the way we do things to help us
respond effectively to changes in the types and numbers of crime on the
railway in England, Scotland and Wales. With continued budget pressures, we
must also ensure we deliver value for money in everything we do.
We are keen to maintain and encourage best practice, but recognise that we
need to adapt and respond as conditions change. The structure that included
units dedicated to investigating specific types of crime was the right thing to
do when it was set up, but it didn’t take into account that there would be
changes in the amount of crime. We have seen significant changes over the
last decade and evidence that positive outcomes are often lower for teams
that deal with specific types of crime. By changing this structure and moving
away from having units dedicated to investigating specific types of crime, we
believe there will be more flexibility to move police officers between teams to
react to increases in crime and achieve the number of positive outcomes we
would expect.
3.2.4. Some respondents raised concerns about how flexible the proposed four-tier
crime allocation system could be. Reasons for this included potential changes
in demand and specific types of crime increasing.
Respondents also questioned if it would be possible for an investigation to
move between tiers if it became more harmful or complex.
‘How will workloads be balanced if the crime being dealt within each tier
increases, e.g. tier 3 level crime increases to a level that those allocated
cannot investigate and close these as expected?’
Recent changes in the number of crimes are one of the reasons for our
proposals. We believe the proposals provide flexibility, enabling us to better
respond to changes in demand.
Decisions will be made about moving investigations between different tiers in
the proposed crime allocation system at each division’s Daily Management
Meeting. This meeting is held in each of our divisions every day and enables
senior police officers to review the last 24 hours and allocate tasks.
3.2.5. Some respondents said crimes that victims of crime perceive as the most
harmful should be prioritised for investigation, as opposed to crimes that BTP
6
OFFICIAL
thinks are the most harmful. They said different victims of crime will be
affected differently by the same type of crime.
‘Crimes shouldn't be prioritised. Each crime type may affect each victim more
severely than others.’
We recognise that everyone is an individual and the way people respond
when they become a victim of crime can vary widely. Our priority is to provide
the best possible service for every victim of crime, tailored to their individual
needs.
We have to prioritise crimes for investigation to enable us to use the
resources available to us most effectively. The proposed crime allocation
system, based on the level of harm the crimes have caused or could cause
and the complexity of the investigation required, would ensure every victim of
crime receives the same high quality service no matter where they are in the
country. By assessing complexity, crimes that might not have been prioritised
for investigation based on the level of harm alone, would now be prioritised.
These include domestic abuse, hate crimes and crimes involving vulnerable
children and adults.
3.2.6. Questions were raised about how we would deal with the uniqueness of the
Scottish legal system.
‘Scotland, England and Wales have very different legal systems. Allocating
the most serious crimes to an English-based "national" unit will surely mean
Scottish victims receiving a lower quality of service from officers unfamiliar
with Scottish systems.’
The most serious types of crime, such as murder and rape, are thankfully very
rare on the railway in Scotland. Therefore, it wouldn’t be an effective use of
our resources to base a Major Serious and Organised Crime (MSOC) team in
Scotland permanently. Under our proposals, MSOC teams in the north of
England (Leeds and Manchester) will cover Scotland.
We recognise that our detectives in Scotland are the most experienced in
operating under Scottish law and procedures. It will therefore be vital that they
support the MSOC teams covering Scotland when a major crime occurs.
Because of this, police officers working in CID in Scotland, who will deal with
Tier 3 crimes, will have a balanced caseload so they can be attached to
MSOC teams when a Tier 4 crime happens.
We have considerable experience of working together on cross-border issues
and will expect police officers working in different teams to cooperate and
support each other to provide the best possible service to victims of crime in
Scotland.
7
OFFICIAL
4.
RESPONDING TO THREAT, HARM AND COMPLEXITY
4.1.
The proposal
4.1.1. We proposed to change our crime investigation structure to support the
proposed crime allocation policy. Police officers and police staff working on
crime investigations would be distributed among different teams. The size of
these teams would be decided based on the amount and complexity of the
crimes they would investigate.
This would mean crimes would be investigated by investigators with the
appropriate level of experience and expertise, balance out caseloads across
the country and give investigators the time they need to carry out thorough
and proportionate investigations.
4.1.2. The consultation asked:
Question 3
We are proud of the service we provide to victims and witnesses of crime, with
81% of victims of crime saying there were satisfied with our service in
2015/16, but we are always looking for ways to improve.
Is there anything else that could improve the crime investigation service we
provide to victims and witnesses of crime?
Question 4
We are looking at ways to make sure that crimes that cause the most harm
are prioritised for investigation and that we can respond to changes in crime
levels and patterns. We must have a crime investigation structure that
supports this, and takes into account the large geographical area we cover as
a national police service, and the budget we have available.
Is there anything else we should consider, in relation to the structure, which
would help us to respond to the changing needs of the public in future and
increases or decreases in crime?
4.2.
Key themes
4.2.1. Some respondents supported the changes and said they are a good idea.
Others raised concerns about reductions in resources and whether this might
stop the structure from working effectively. Concerns were also raised about
the impact the proposals would have on frontline police officers and calls for
service.
‘Afford this area proper resourcing.’
‘The obvious problem is having enough suitably trained officers to carry out
the plans.’
Some respondents said they wanted to see more uniformed police officers on
patrol.
‘The one thing most people want to see is a visible presence…’
8
OFFICIAL
The number of police officers and police staff we are proposing for each area
of the crime investigation business area is based on current crime figures and
trends. We believe that the number of police officers and police staff that are
proposed for each location or tier is appropriate for the amount of crime that
needs to be investigated. We have built a review process into the proposals to
allow resource levels to be monitored continuously and reviewed annually,
and increased or decreased whenever and wherever this may be needed.
The Crime Review is concerned with the people we employ to carry out
criminal investigations. We will continue to recruit and train frontline police
officers. There will always be a number of police officers and police
community support office (PCSOs) who work in Neighbourhood Policing
Teams and conduct patrols on the railway. These police officers will
investigate a limited number of Tier 1 crimes (Neighbourhood Crime). This will
allow for quicker resolutions and won’t involve activities that will remove them
from frontline duties. In some areas of the country, the amount of cases
frontline police officers investigate will decrease. We believe our proposals will
free up frontline police officers to carry out more patrols and be more visible
on the railway.
4.2.2. Respondents said they want to see more victim and witness care and for
victims and witnesses of crime to be kept updated on the progress of cases.
They said they would also like victims of certain types of crime, such as
sexual offences, to receive an enhanced response compared to victims of
other types of crime.
We are committed to providing a gold standard service to victims and
witnesses of crime. In 2015/16, 81% of victims of crime were satisfied with our
service, however, we believe the proposals will help to improve this. The
proposed structure means victims and witnesses of crime would have contact
with fewer people from BTP and a clear point of contact, with more flexibility
to provide a service tailored to the victim’s or witness’ needs.
4.2.3. Some respondents suggested ways of improving the services we deliver,
including:

Monitoring data to identify whether certain crimes happen at certain
times of the day and tasking police officers according to the results

Providing police officers with technology that helps them with their roles
and makes processes quicker

Providing alternative reporting methods to the public that allows them
to use their mobile phones to report crimes quickly and discreetly.
We are always looking to find new and innovative ways that enable us to
improve how we police the railway.
We monitor crime data and task police officers based on this. The new
proactive crime teams will be tasked in this way and patrol the network when
crime is most likely to occur.
9
OFFICIAL
We are undertaking a large transformation programme, which includes
providing police officers and staff with cutting edge technology, including body
worn video and mobile technology, to enable them to provide a more effective
service.
In 2013, we launched a service that allows the public to report incidents on a
train or at a station discreetly by sending a text to 61016. Since then, we have
received more than 55,000 texts. The service is promoted by every train
operating company in England, Scotland and Wales, and has been featured
on national television, including BBC’s The One Show. We also use social
media channels, including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, to engage with
the public and have more than 120,000 followers across all channels.
10
OFFICIAL
5.
COORDINATING OUR RESPONSE TO SEXUAL OFFENCES ON THE
RAILWAY
5.1.
The proposals
5.1.1. We proposed to create an enhanced approach to how we investigate sexual
offences. This included the establishment of a National Sexual Offences
Coordination Unit that would have national oversight but focus its attention on
parts of the country with the greatest demand, and guide national strategy,
share best practice and ensure all victims of sexual offences receive a high
quality and consistent service.
We also recognised the fact that more than 70% of sexual offences on the
railway happen in London, proposing to dedicate 16 investigators to this crime
type and have at least two proactive teams whose primary focus would be
deterring and detecting sexual offences by carrying out patrols targeting
offenders.
5.1.2. The consultation asked:
Question 5
We are committed to stopping sexual offences on the railway. Of all the
crimes recorded on the railway between April 2013 and March 2016, 3% were
sexual offences. While this may seem like a small proportion of the crime we
deal with, the harm these offences cause cannot be underestimated.
What else could we do to ensure that a new crime investigation structure
would deliver on our commitment to tackling sexual offences on the railway
and enable us to respond to increased reporting as a result of awarenessraising campaigns and increased public confidence?
Question 6
What else could we do to maximise proactive opportunities to deter and detect
sexual offences on the railway?
5.2.
Key themes
5.2.1. A number of respondents said they support the proposals.
This seems like an excellent idea.'
Some respondents said they believed we had intended to disband the existing
dedicated Sexual Offences Unit in London.
‘It seems like back-pedalling now….’
Tackling sexual offences remains one of our top priorities. As part of the
Crime Review, we had originally proposed to move police officers from our
existing London-based Sexual Offences Unit into a wider team that would be
responsible for all types of criminal investigation. This caused concern among
some of our police officers and police staff and stakeholders, including
members of the public and interest groups.
11
OFFICIAL
We were concerned by the feedback that we received about this proposal and
decided to stop work on moving ahead with some of the Crime Review’s
original proposals and reconsider. We responded to the feedback by
proposing to dedicate more resources to tackling sexual offences, which
formed part of the proposals we consulted on.
5.2.2. Some respondents said that victims of sexual offences should be provided
with more support.
We understand the impact sexual offences have on victims and are
committed to providing them with the highest standard of care and support.
We propose to continue providing Specially Trained Officer training (STO,
also known as SOIT) to ensure we have the right number of STOs across
BTP to help with gathering evidence and supporting victims throughout the
investigative process and resulting prosecution. We are also carrying out
research into victims’ experiences of sexual offences, from reporting to
prosecution, and working with third parties to identify what improvements can
be made.
5.2.3. A large number of respondents talked about how an increased police
presence could deter sexual offending. Some recommended having a
mixture of uniformed and plain-clothed patrols and police officers on trains at
rush hour and late at night. There was a suggestion that this police presence
should not be concentrated on central London and take place on some
commuter routes.
‘Have some plain clothed and uniformed officers on trains as well as in
stations.’
‘More officers on trains especially during rush hour and targeting major
commuting routes not just in London…’
We note and understand the feedback from both the public and our
stakeholders in the rail industry that a visible police presence is seen as one
of the main tools in reassuring the public and lowering crime on the railway.
Our proposals will mean that fewer crime investigations are allocated to
frontline police officers, freeing them up to provide more high visibility patrols
on the railway. The use of proactive teams will mean we are more able to
prevent crimes from happening in the first place. These teams will be
deployed in uniform and plain clothes.
5.2.4. Some respondents talked about the use of media campaigns and publicity,
recognition of the work that has been done already and a suggestion that
more of this would help. Respondents suggested providing guidance to the
public on how to stay safe and others wanted to see poster campaigns that
informed offenders that they are being watched and that sexual offences
would not be tolerated.
‘Publicity of successful outcomes may encourage reporting and increase
confidence.’
12
OFFICIAL
We are supportive of the use of media and publicity campaigns in deterring
and detecting crime and have had success with this in the past with Project
Guardian and Report It to Stop It. We intend to continue to work with our
partners to continue to raise awareness that unwanted sexual behaviour won’t
be tolerated, that offenders are brought to justice and to give victims the
confidence that something will be done if they report incidents to us.
5.2.5. Some suggestions were outside of the scope of the Crime Review.
‘..in the future make sure all London Underground trains are fitted with CCTV
recording.’
‘When crammed on 4 car trains with 12 cars worth of people inappropriate
contact happens. Tackle the cause...’
We work with the rail industry to provide advice on any impacts infrastructure
proposals and changes to safety procedures may have on the safety and
security of everyone who uses or works on the railway. We recognise that
there are some issues with overcrowding and CCTV coverage, but they fall
outside of the scope of this review. However, we are involved in discussions
with the industry in an effort to address these. We continue to deploy Crime
Reduction Officers to work with train and station operators to help reduce
crime.
5.2.6. Before starting the public consultation, media reports about our proposals to
tackle sexual offences in a different way led to concern from members of the
public and some stakeholders. This gave us the opportunity to refine our
proposals before formally consulting the public. We reconsidered our
proposed approach for dealing with sexual offences. We amended our
proposals to include sexual offence investigators and proactive teams in
London and a new national sexual offences coordination unit, as described in
the public consultation document.
The public consultation period allowed us a further opportunity to review our
proposals.
We looked at our proposal to form two proactive teams, based in London,
whose primary focus would be deterring and detecting sexual offences, and
which would be supported by another four London-based proactive teams that
would focus on deterring and detecting a range of crimes, including sexual
offences.
When we considered how this would work in practice, we realised that only
having two of the six teams focused on deterring and detecting sexual
offences in London, the South and East wouldn’t enable us to put the teams in
the right places at the right times when we know these offences are more
likely to happen. Therefore, we have revised this proposal to increase our
capacity to have proactive teams in the right places at the right times.
We now plan to have all six of the proposed London-based proactive teams
focused on deterring and detecting sexual offences as their main priority. This
means that seven days a week, two of those teams will be carrying out this
task. If we had continued with our original proposal, there could have been
13
OFFICIAL
days of the week when we had not proactive teams available to carry out
patrols on the network focused on sexual offences. All members of the six
teams will receive relevant training to provide them with the knowledge and
skills they need to target offenders and support victims and witnesses.
We believe these enhanced proposals will provide a better and more
consistent service for victims of sexual offences across the country. We
believe it will enable us to provide an open and transparent service and
ensure we continue to better understand victims’ needs and work with them to
secure successful prosecutions of offenders.
14
OFFICIAL
6.
TACKLING VIOLENCE AGAINST RAILWAY STAFF
6.1.
The proposal
6.1.1. We proposed that the most serious assaults against railway staff would be
allocated to Tier 4 – Major Serious and Organised Crime (MSOC) for
investigation, with all other reports of physical violence allocated to Tier 3 –
CID for investigation. Offences where no physical violence is used would be
investigated by frontline uniformed police officers as part of their normal
duties.
6.1.2. The consultation asked:
Question 7
We believe that people who work on the railway have the right to do their job
without fear of intimidation, abuse or violence. Between April 2015 and March
2016, 8.5% of all the crimes recorded by BTP related to violence against rail
staff (an average of 11.2 crimes per day).
What else should we consider, when creating a new crime allocation policy
and crime investigation structure, that would help us tackle violence against
rail staff?
6.2.
Key themes
6.2.1. Some respondents said they share our belief that railway staff have the right
to do their job without fear of intimidation, abuse or violence.
‘BAN people who assault staff. It is not a right to use the railway…’
Some respondents said that none of these crimes should be allocated to
frontline uniformed police officers as this would take them away from their
patrol duties.
‘Uniformed officers are here to patrol the stations, trains, etc, not to
investigate petty crimes…’
Some said that some physical violence investigations should remain with
frontline uniformed police officers as allocating these to other teams would
result in frontline police officers becoming de-skilled. Others said that the
existing London-based Workplace Violence Unit should remain.
‘I would retain the workplace violence unit but reduce it in size and only
investigate assaults and racial crime….’
Some respondents didn’t share the view that railway staff who are assaulted
should receive the kind of service we are offering. Some said that railway staff
can cause issues for themselves, while others suggested that customer
service and conflict management training could help to reduce the number of
crimes committed against railway staff.
15
OFFICIAL
‘This is political pandering to ATOC and completely unacceptable to me as a
paying customer - why should a member of staff …. get a higher level of
service than those who actually pay for the service?’
‘Have staff had the appropriate customer services training…?’
‘Ensure that staff who are forward facing receive conflict management and
resolution training…’
Violence against railway staff seriously affects the industry’s ability to provide
a quality service to customers. Victims may be too afraid to return to work and
this can impact on services. Victims often work in the same location, and can
encounter regular travellers every day, which increases their chances of
coming into contact with the person who has assaulted or threatened them.
Railway staff keep the railway running for everyone and it is vital that they are
able to do their job without fear.
We work with the rail industry to ensure training, such as conflict management
training, and support is in place. We also analyse crime patterns to identify
repeat offenders, repeat locations and repeat victims. We use this information
in consultation with train operating companies to identify the sources of
problems and find suitable solutions.
16
OFFICIAL
7.
INCIDENTS WHERE SOMEONE HAS DIED OR BEEN HARMED ON THE
RAILWAY
7.1.
The proposals
7.1.1. We proposed to remove investigations involving someone who has died on
the railway away from frontline uniformed police officers in England and
Wales. Non-suspicious deaths would be investigated by Fatality Investigators
and suspicious deaths or harm would be investigated by investigators in Major
Serious and Organised Crime (MSOC).
7.1.2. The consultation asked:
Question 8
There were 388 deaths on the railway between April 2015 and March 2016.
Many of these are what we call non-suspicious. Although these fatalities are
not technically a crime, they must be investigated and details passed to the
Coroner (England and Wales) or Procurator Fiscal (Scotland).
What else should we consider, when creating a new crime allocation policy
and crime investigation structure, that would help us to ensure all fatality
investigations are conducted professionally, with dignity for the deceased and
excellent levels of care and support for families and loved ones left behind?
7.2.
Key themes
7.2.1. Twenty-six respondents answered this question. Some said they support the
proposals while others advocated the approach we currently take to fatality
investigations. The majority of respondents recognised the seriousness of this
subject and appreciated the need for a sensitive approach.
‘My experience of BTP …dealing with this has always been positive ….’
‘I think BTP already deal with each fatality with a high degree of dignity and
excellent level of support for the families…
Some respondents highlighted the need for support for family members and
loved ones.
‘Ensure family liaison is fully supportive for the family of the deceased.’
Others said there is also a need to support officers who attend fatalities or
visit families to inform them of what has happened.
‘There is very little care for officers afterwards’
We recognise that the dignity and respect of the deceased should be our first
priority, and providing a professional and caring service to the loved ones left
behind is part of this. Frontline response officers have competing demands on
their time, which can lead to delays in meeting with families and keeping them
informed and can cause them further distress. Using Fatality Investigators,
who are police staff and won’t have competing demands on their time, will
enable them to focus fully on supporting those affected by these incidents.
17
OFFICIAL
They will receive additional training to ensure they fully understand and
comply with the processes and procedures of HM Coroners Courts. They will
also receive training in providing high levels of care and support to families.
7.2.2. Many fatalities on the railway are witnessed by the train driver, who is
helpless to prevent it from happening. It is vital that we help to care for the
people involved. Our Fatality Investigators will receive training in caring for
witnesses to ensure their welfare needs are met.
Our police officers must respectfully remove the deceased to a mortuary after
a fatality on the railway. To ensure the welfare needs of our police officers are
met, we have a network of trauma managers who help to debrief officers who
have attended fatality incidents and provide them with relevant support.
18
OFFICIAL
8.
PREVENTING AND DETECTING CRIMES THAT HAPPEN MORE OFTEN
THAN OTHERS
8.1.
The proposals
8.1.1. We proposed to allocate investigations into ‘volume crimes’, such as theft of
passenger property and cycle crime, to dedicated teams in London, the South
and East (B Division). This is because these types of crimes cause less harm
but happen more often, so having dedicated teams to investigate them would
enable other police officers to spend time investigating crimes that cause
more harm but happen less often, and support victims and witnesses.
8.1.2. The consultation asked:
Question 9
We are committed to creating a crime allocation policy and crime investigation
structure that gives our investigators time to focus on the crimes that cause
the greatest harm.
What else can we do to ensure a new crime investigation structure doesn’t
unintentionally lead to volume crimes being given priority for investigation over
crimes that cause more harm?
8.2.
Key themes
8.2.1. Some respondents said that all crimes should be given the same level of
priority. Some said that crimes like theft of passenger property and cycle
crime could be as distressing for victims as other crimes that we consider to
be more harmful. There was also a suggestion that police officers
investigating volume crimes would be overwhelmed with the number of cases
and this would impact on the service delivered to victims.
The number of investigators proposed for each team is based on the current
and forecasted number of volume crimes. We believe that this is sufficient to
allow them to conduct timely and proportionate investigations. We believe that
the amount of time spent investigating a crime needs to be proportionate to
the harm caused.
8.2.2. Some respondents suggested that we should review the proposals after they
have been implemented to make sure they are working. It was also suggested
that we should review what we class as volume crime regularly and make
changes as needed.
The proposals have a mechanism built in that will allow for resource levels to
be reviewed and amended annually. There will also be at least a yearly review
of volume crime and an assessment of whether the crimes and resources at
Tier 2 – Volume Crime are appropriate.
19
OFFICIAL
9.
IMPACT ON EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
9.1.
The question
9.1.1. The consultation paper looked to help us address our statutory obligations in
relation to equality, diversity and human rights and our duty to:



Eliminate discrimination, victimisation, harassment or other unlawful
conduct that is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010;
Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not; and
Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected
characteristic.
9.1.2. Across the protected characteristics of:








Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
Sex and sexual orientation
9.1.3. In order to help us do this, the consultation asked:
Question 10
Are there any likely impacts that our proposals may have on particular groups
of people that you think we should be taking into consideration (referring to
the protected characteristics above)?
Please provide details of these and any action you think we could take.
9.2.
Key themes
9.2.1. There were limited responses to this question. Sixty-six people didn’t answer
it or said they couldn’t foresee any issues.
Those that did respond suggested that these types of proposals are likely to
affect some groups more than others as they are more likely to commit certain
types of crimes. They also suggested that the impact is not always known
prior to implementation and that it will be worth revisiting this subject and
reviewing the impact at a later date.
We will complete our Equality Analysis and use this to identify any actions
needed to enable us to meet our statutory obligations.
20
OFFICIAL
10.
NEXT STEPS
10.1. Implementation work will start in early 2017. We anticipate that the
introduction of the new crime allocation policy based on threat, harm and
complexity and the restructuring of teams will start in April 2017 and be
completed before the end of the year.
10.2. Implementation will be planned to ensure that services to the public are
seamless and uninterrupted. All existing cases will continue to be investigated
and processed during this transition.
10.3. Police officers and police staff will be kept informed of the changes.
10.4. A fair and transparent process will be used to transition police officers and
police staff into the new structure. No police officers will be made redundant
as a result of the changes and efforts will be made to minimise the number of
police staff redundancies as a result of the Crime Review.
21
OFFICIAL
Appendix A – List of responses received from members of the public who gave
permission for us to publish them.
The responses are repeated exactly as they were received to avoid the context of
the feedback being incorrectly represented by correcting incorrect spelling or
grammar. Any responses where the respondent has stated they do not want their
answers to be published have been removed.
Q1 Is there anything else we should consider that would help improve our
crime allocation policy and ensure a consistently high standard of
investigation?
Have more officers to investigate crimes
You should be more sensitive with the victims of crime with the officer checking on how there doing
and rooms where people can't hear you given statements out. You have victim care which helps but
you need to have more support for the victims to get there lives back on track, with groups when the
criminal get help in prison.
How will work loads be balanced if the crime being dealt within each Tier increases, e.g. Tier 3 level
crime increases to a level that those allocated cannot investigate and close these as expected?
In principle I think the allocation system proposed is a good idea. The grading system allows the
appropriate level of expertise and resource to be allocated.
Scotland, England and Wales have very different legal systems. Allocating the most serious crimes to
an English based "national " unit will surely mean Scottish victims receiving a lower quality of service
from officers unfamiliar with Scottish systems
Beware of the broken window effect.
You need to look at crime perception ie broken windows theory. Tackle low anti social behaviour and
other crime like Graffiti to reduce the perception of crime and fear as a traveller in the railway. I see
Graffiti and think that there must be crime near by as nothing is done to stop or clean it.
Locations throughout Britain, not only england
It's worth considering the geography of south west an need on occasion to investigate quickly to
miniseries disruption. Also that currently increasingly low level crime is not reported as local view is
that there is little point
How many serious offences merit a Tier 4 response? What will down-time look like for this team?
A bespoke crime system whereby specialised units to deal with certain volume crimes; eg- sexual
offences, theft from person and graffiti therefore enabling officers with extensive knowledge and
experience around their speciality to perform better.
We must remember that BTP are like no other Police Force in the UK. The crimes can be very specific
and I think it would be important to maintain a level of speciality within the force, which I think are
otherwise going to be lost. - TfL are a major stakeholder in the BTP and in my opinion are entitled to
an enhanced level of service - this includes places like the Workplace Violence Unit which I am being
made aware of at the moment is completely overstretched. Giving the responsibility back to a
generalised crime allocation team would run the risk of a loss in confidence of the stakeholder and
most importantly the victim. BTP run the risk of losing some very much valued experience and having
a relatively 'young in service' force already. We could be setting up an uncertain future if we do not
invest in the people that we already have, by using and developing their skills in an investigative role.
Employ more police officers to act as public liaison
More trained detectives to ensure high standards and investigations completed properly. More
specialised units to ensure the public and industry receive the best possible service e.g. Assaults
team, theft team, graffiti. A more streamline allocation system to not investigate minor public order or
byelaws so detectives can concentrate on crime that has a higher impact on the victim.
I believe the BTP should work far more closely with public transport staff and support them
accordingly. Yet I understand that, far from doing so, plans are in place to disband the BTP's
'Workplace Violence Unit' which committed itself back in 2006 to working "in partnership" with
Transport for London and London Underground to actively tackle and help prevent assaults against
public transport workers and passengers. In essence, finally putting some substance behind the words
of all those poster campaigns! Disbanding or discontinuing this valuable asset of both the BTP and
22
OFFICIAL
TfL/LU seems absolutely reckless at a time when it is needed the most. What kind of message do you
think this sends out to the travelling public and those rail staff you claim to be working with and
protecting...clearly, reducing assaults is no longer a priority for the BTP on the tube, trains and stations
across London?
no
Will forcing neighbourhood officers to deal with neighbourhood crime mean less officers available to do
their main job? Will they be tied up with long winded investigation?
Please exercise extreme caution. The British transport police have an exceptional reputation which is
not worth losing for anything. I am not at all sure why the current system needs to change. It is
noticeably better than Home Office forces. Echoing Home Office force procedure normally leads to a
deterioration in BTP Service delivery
Age of victim under 18 over 70 Gender including trans
Police officers will spend their time in front of a computer or phone. Victims will speak with staff only
and then they then decide who deals with their crime. Doesn't seem fair You would need a massive
team of call handlers who are trained to take the calls from victims and then crime them accordingly
Seems like it is going to cost allot of money and time only for the personal service to victims to
disappear
Keep victims and families up to date with what tier they will be placed in and what time span of
investigation can be expected
Some low level crimes that have an impact on public confidence or are likely to attract adverse
comment or concern by the community should be allocated to a competent investigator which may not
be in Tier 1 or 2
Have victims of crime given the ability to speak to a police officer first of all, as opposed to being
passed straight to a crime recording centre. This would circumvent any delays in the allocation or
investigation process.
specialised units.
Informing the victim of the outcome of the crime committed not only how it is progressing. Maybe,
people rest easy i.e the elderly, knowing that the perpetrator has been sufficiently punished for the
crime and that they receive consequences.
Would the victim (if caseloads allow) be given an assigned officer that updates them with progress
rather than several officers...
Yes, all officers are trained and capable of investigating crime, therefore, crimes should be allocated to
every officer whether frontline or not. BTP had too many officers on core teams investigating little or no
crime, avoiding arrests and tripping over each other to get to the incidents where an arrest was likely
one that could be handed over.
Ensuring you have enough BTP officers in order to allocate crimes to the relevant departments.
More ownership on individuals and train operating companies. Where little information is given or
where train operating companies are unwilling to help, BTP should not waste time running around.
The crime should be scaled based on likely outcome being successful. Train companies should
especially be part of the solution. Poor CCTV, lack of easy access needs to be rectified as a priority.
Also less politics about dealing with low level crime. Simple trespass, public order etc needs to be
dealt with within hours not days and weeks
Police constables and PCSOs should be front line resources there to provide a highly visible,
reassuring presence and deal with offences as they come across them. Once an offender is reported,
arrested, fined etc. Then they should be able to write a statement and hand it over to an appropriate
investigating officer, be that a civilian/detective/other enquiry officer to complete or assist the following
evidence gathering/case building. This would allow a standardised level of investigation from
appropriately trained and dedicated individuals. PC's can not always guarantee an equal or balanced
standard of investigation when they are also required to respond to incidents, do operations, taskings
and also commit to abstractions for football and other events. Also the requirement for them to
investigate crimes to a minimum standard and build case files detracts from their core policing role.
This creates an environment of conflict where they are asked to do both things and afford them equal
importance but are unable and feel like they are doing neither to the best of their ability.
I feel dedicated teams are required to investigate crimes for customers/victims to be treated fairly I feel
front line police officers are already under too much pressure to provide high visibility policing to be
kept in the office investigating crimes
Consultation been had with industry stakeholders and those that fund BTP?
23
OFFICIAL
Allocate to officers with a lesser workload, and not on nightshift so they can actually progress with an
enquiry.
Dedicated teams should deal with certain crimes. Detectives with specialist knowledge. Leave
bobbies on the beat
Ensuring you have sufficient officers to investigate (or actually prevent) crime and that they are
stationed at the right locations.
Isn't this model the same one that already exists? Except Volume Crime is currently labelled Case
Progression Team?!
You should have dedicated investigation officer to allow police to actually patrol
Are you asking "Tell us how to do our job" ? Surely you have the policing expertise to decide this
yourselves without unqualified guidance which is going to be so variable as to be as pointless as it is
inconclusive.
In Manchester front line officers stopped dealing with crimes and they went to a central unit, the victims
didn't get the same level of contact as the unit were too busy, Manchester police have now gone back
to the old system of all officers having their own crimes.
Police officers are being bogged down with endless paperwork. This must have an affect on how they
deal with an incident and still try to meet the high standards of investigation. Employ civilian police staff
as investigators for some of this workload and get the officers back out on the beat where they
belong, showing a visible reassuring presence instead of sitting in front of a computer
Q2 Is there anything else we should consider when assessing the threat and
harm crimes cause or could cause and how complex they are?
All investigations should be carried out by specialised officers, not beat bobbies.
The people that are hate by the crimes and the officer need to be more sensitive towards the victims
of the crime. Some case that need to be dealt with better is rape and mental health where the officer
are trained to deal with those serious crime.
No comment
No.
Things like antisocial behaviour can have a big impact on the victim scaring them away from
travelling.
Frequency of crime either by repeat victim or location
It would be good to consult with expert stakeholders to establish what constitutes 'harm' and how you
measure it e.g.emotional and physical harm
As previously not just harm and threat like GBH, rape etc but other crimes that breed crime. If
someone causes anti social issues on the railway and is ignored or not a priority then you set a tone
that crime is excepted.
Btp is a private railway force and therefore there should also be an element of what the railway would
like investigated.
Cycle crime as volume crime- is there a danger that cycle thieves will seek out opportunities of police
disinterest (ACC Newton has mentioned this in previous releases).
Crimes shouldn't be prioritised. Each crime type may affect each victim more severely than others.
Harm factors are always important and higher harm factors do usually contribute to better sentencing
at court. These factors are always easily identified at an early stage and so I agree that a certain
priority should be given to these types of crimes - but BTP have some very experienced detectives
who by word of mouth and through direct source appear completed disillusioned by the current state
of uncertainty that has been created as a result of this review. You need to ensure that as a volume
crime force, you have sufficiently qualified people to deal with the lower level offences and that the
investigators are well practised in their investigation techniques; We have seen how BTP are
pursuing their 'value for money' targets, by ensuring maximum visibility on the network (solo patrol /
line-of-sight policing). Uniformed Police Officers are subject to lots of deployments outside of their
core roles of Neighbourhood Policing / Response for ad-hoc incidents (some major) and planned
football / concert events. It can sometimes be that officers don't get around to completing
investigations / victim contacts for a significant period, through no fault of their own. BTP must
make sure that investigation responsibilities for these officers are limited to extremely low level
24
OFFICIAL
offences only, such are bye laws. Although something like 'theft' is probably generally classed as a
'lower harm' category, consideration must be given as to the complexity of proving such offences such
as the defendants intentions, the time it takes to collect all the available evidence and provide victims
with support during this period. The idea of lowering a priority for this type of crime I would suggest is
a little closed minded and the consequences of such an idea being implemented could affect BTPs
future.
Crimes should be investigated in line with the particular victim's needs. Every incident is different, as
is the impact on that victim. It is wrong to consider a certain type of assault is punishable by a simple
caution, for example, if the victim has been left in need of counselling and their faith in the police and
justice system destroyed as a result of the police's apathetic approach.
Yes .. the term harm needs to relate to harm to the victim and general public, not harm to the
organisation
no
Expertise and experience
The association of mental health and associated vulnerabilities and the links with crime.
Yes, it is wrong to assess this through SOP's or a list of criteria. The Lee Rigby attack was called in as
an assault. There is often more to a job than may meet the eye. Human discretion is of the upmost
importance
How a victim is actually feeling!
Most serious risk to life Most serious risk to most vulnerable under 5s, disability and over 75s
Trends which may be extremist or short term eg killer clown
You should assess the suspects risk of reoffending and take steps to reduce these risks.
Surely this comes down to experienced officers having a conversation If everyone is on 24 hour
shifts. It means less officers on during the day to investigate efficiently
Talk to the families of the victim as well as the victim. When an assault has occurred the victim may
not see things clearly straight away but a family member will.
Firstly, all crimes matter to the victim in some manner but it is only proper that certain crimes are
prioritised.
Where a crime category often has a vulnerable or intimidated victim for example sexual offences, a
specific team should be in place to provide victims with the best dedicated care with officers that have
experience of that particular area rather than a general police officer taking on the crime.
I would hope that individual circumstances are looked, understandable this takes management. So for
example, an individual who uses the London tube everyday and rushes around everyday but has a
crime committed against them may or may not feel that is part of the risk of using crowded tubes and
train stations. A crime committed against a more vulnerable individual such as an elderly or
disabled individual may take more of impact on their social lives and it may take sometime for these
individuals to trust that travel network again, so help and support with these individuals is required
more than some.
Do not investigate simple matters that will only consume officers time when they could be focusing on
more important matters
I can't see how shoplifting is NOT classed as a volume crime. I believe it should be and therefore
taken away from front line staff to investigate.
So long as harm is defined as emotional, psychological as well as physical, sexual etc
Yes, BTP need to be far far far (yes x3) more robust with petulant calls from rail and tube staff. By
weeding out calls that would never appear on any other forces incinerator logs (with good reason) the
calls will reduce and eventually stop. This removes unnecessary distraction of police time. A better
investment would be in getting involved with the conflict management training of the TOCs and LU.
You should also consider more robust remits for the team's reinforced by management preventing the
sloping of jobs into other departments. This clarity will improve effectiveness of your investigative
officers.
Impact on officers and the victim. Zero tollerance on officer and staff assaults
This will be hard to priorities due to victims perceptions of the crime and injury caused.
25
OFFICIAL
Try explaining to a revenue protection inspector that the straight forward fare evasion you were
investigating has been NFAd by ERG because, despite the evidence being credible and the witness
reliable, it is "trivial in the scheme of things". While it is not an offence of great harm, it is an offence of
great volume and importance to a large portion of staff on the network. When we don't follow through
on prosecution it reflects poorly on us and they question our commitment and support. Recently we
have received complaints from revenue officers at our location because they don't think we are
dealing with offences like this seriously - and it is hard to explain that you would rather deal with it in a
different way so you can be there to deal with or prevent something more serious, rather than
knowing you are arresting someone (2hrs+ Off the network), taking statements (1hr+), criming it and
building a case file (2-3hrs) all to have it NFAd anyway seems contradictory to what you are there for.
Not to say that arrests don't occur if they are necessary - but you do go the extra mile to try and get
the revenue to resolve it another way if possible. As the transport police, railway offences are our
bread and butter, and a lot of them are trivial in the scheme of things. However that is a large part of
why we are, that's our specialism and that's our environment. So if it falls in that category of being
within our specialism, then I thing it should be weighted as being important.
All victims should feel they are being treated the same regardless of the crime
The threat and harm different crimes cause or could cause vary depending on each victim of each
crime. Factors such as age, gender, ethnicity etc are contributing factors to how each crime affects
each individual.
Work closer with home office forces.
It needs to be established what percentage of crime meets the 'most harm' category. Does this crime
type actually occur sufficiently enough to warrant such a set up or is the current system in place
adequate to deal when it does occur. You have surely managed beforehand? Greater emphasis
should be placed on having sufficient officers in the first place.
As a police force we have a duty of care to the public on a whole rather than just ones on the railway
at any given time. Crimes that do not directly affect the railway at that time (ie PWITS) have often
been considered not as important to BTP as it does not directly affect the railway (for example, the
trains are only being used to transport the drugs and no dealing/supplying is occurring on BTP
ground) despite the fact that it could well cause harm to the public at a later time (who may well then
fall ill as a result of overdose etc while on the train home.....). This massively undermines us as a
police force and puts strain on home office forces because we do not deem it necessary to tackle the
problem. When assessing harm caused we need to consider the wider impact of an offence and not
just deal with something because the railway decides what is and isn't important to them.
Agreed
Are you asking "Tell us how to do our job" ? Surely you have the policing expertise to decide this
yourselves without unqualified guidance which is going to be so variable as to be as pointless as it is
inconclusive.
If people see officers they feel secure but if they are a victim of crime they want the personal touch as
it is their life that has been effected. If it is serious then they would expect a CID officer to deal with it.
It is too easy for the police to say that it is not important enough for them to look at.
All crimes have a high priority to the person affected. More support should be offered to the victims.
Instead of filling up the courts with low level offences, police should use more discretion and issue
more FPN but there should be a limit on how many an offender receives. Anyone can make a silly
mistake, but not continuing ones.
Q3 Is there anything else that could improve the crime investigation service we
provide to victims and witnesses of crime?
All crimes should be investigated by specialist officers, no matter what. That would free up time for the
bobbies to do patrol duties. I want my local officer to be out on the streets, not stuck in an office
"investigating" petty crimes. The Met tried this approach and it is a complete disaster. Crime goes up
and no officers are out on the streets.
Everything crimes that has been dealt with needs to treated the some.
No comment
I've never been directly involved, or had reports of any comments regarding what could have been
done better. As long as crimes are investigated promptly, by the appropriate resource and ideally
26
OFFICIAL
concluded successfully it would be difficult to suggest improvement. One could only hope that a 100%
success rate would be achieved, however unlikely in the real world. My one suggestion would be to
ensure successful outcomes are well publicised to give reassurance and to hopefully deter would-be
offenders- however unlikely that may be!
Recognise differences between Scotland and rest of UK. Scotrail staff who are regular callers to BTP
are frequently frustrated at basic difficulties caused by lack of geographical knowledge and BTP staff
based in England not being able to understand accents.
Ensuring that it is only ever specially trained officers that investigate sexual offences due to the
sensitive nature of the crimes.
A national structure will struggle as London and other cities will have specific needs. Cities like
London will need other specialist units like you the sexual offences. What about Graffiti investigation
or pickpockets on the underground
Assaults on railstaff should be looked at, or at least screened by, somebody with knowledge of wider
rail community impact and know how to negotiate union concerns regards their membership and have
local knowledge of how TOCs operate
Touching base even if there is no news would be good
You seem to have covered most aspects of crimes and ways to prioritize and investigate them. The
obvious problem is having enough suitably trained officers to carry out the plans.
There is no point having investigators on night turns. They will be unable to investigate incidents and
this will be wasted time. The public do not want a statement or to be spoken to at 2 in the morning
and a high majority of victims will be drunk. Arrested people can not be interviewed as the need a
period of rest in custody and again they can't be dealt with if drunk. In enquiries can be done and cctv
will not be available. We need more detectives on during the day and not on during the weekend.
Sunday is a very quiet day so there should only minimal officers on. Officers need to be suitabley
rested and not work long stretches of shifts or nights without a minimum of 3 days off. There is not
point having officers on duty if they are too tired to work effectively or they shift exhaust them. Officer
do an extremely difficult job and need to be protected.
Improved communications through the provision of regular updates. Even if there has been little or no
progress, victims still like to be reassured that their case either hasn't been forgotten or perhaps has
even been resolved (e.g. by way of a caution or fixed penalty).
Yes extra numbers of officers, you are planning to reduce the numbers of investigators or police
officers in that role. If this is to work then they need the numbers and resources to investigate things
fully (not 11 hours)
Crime prevention; safety awareness and multi agency collaboration to reduce incidence of crime and
protect vulnerable young people.
It is very important to be clear on which crimes supposedly cause the most harm and the least harm.
Four instance, theft from person is a particular issue on the railway. Depending what measure of
harm is used would presumably depend on how seriously this would be taken
Due to the way BTP is funded, I would guess that this would be high priority - but a crime is a crime is
a crime. Common sense use of resources is preferable if we want our police service to be human with
the public.
Specially trained staff to interview kids please keep these amazing people
Officers should do a breakdown or even a timeline of where their investigation is at, and victims
should have the ability to view this at any time during a live investigation (online) or be provided with a
time line at the end. It would give victims the confidence that all leads are being investigated and that
the officers understand what the victim has reported. This may not be suitable on all crime types,
e.g.domestic violence cases.
81% is very high. If it isn't broke then why fix it. This will cost money time and allot of confusion and all
for what ? I think better management from senior officers who achieve better results with the current
structure staying in place
Communication. Communication between the btp and the victim and families. Nit just when key things
happen ie charges brought, but a courtesy call to reassure victims especially in assault cases or
sexual cases. When my partner who is a train driver was assaulted there were long gaps of no
communication where we were left wondering what was happening.
Victims of crime should be able to speak to an officer regarding an ongoing investigation. Periodic
updates should only be made when there is tangible information that will assist the victim and not
callls made for calls sake.
More dedicate units to specific crimes
I think in today's economy and climate of threat that the UK receive, as a force you are doing very
27
OFFICIAL
well.
Better use of IT? More up to date ways of dealing with images or videos that people take of offenders
or offences. Better IT for front line officers. We live in an age where you can pretty do much anything
with a smartphone and yet police IT still lags behind.
Yes! Delete the first bullett on this page. This consultation just lost all credibility. So a victim of a
common assault will get a specially trained officer, family liaison officer and an ABE interview?
"Same service" went out of fashion as a buzz phrase about 5/6 years ago in favour of the far more
sensible "right service". Proactive teams are a proven and effective means of tackling crime....
however, look at the numbers you are quoting and your geography. That number of officers would be
far better used in the hours when people are trapped on trains for 20 minutes between stops with vile
creatures who know there aren't police or ticket inspectors around. Your staff would need training in
proactive policing so it doesn't just become anoth Gucci escape from core policing.
Employ IO's like me who assist Dc's on sexual assault investigations. By supporting officers cases
can be progressed more quickly and it's less stress for them thereby reducing long term sick rates.
More proactive teams. More officers on trains rather than at stations. More officers in rural areas
rather than at hub stations. More use of Special Constables outside hub stations
Afford this area proper resourcing. Enough people to fairly and effectively manage the work without
overworking them and having them go suck with stress thus causing the collapse of the whole team
and a complete failure of the implementation. Personally I think you need police officers on the above
four teams without question. However, they do not and should not be entirely police officers. In terms
of managing expense, funding aspects and retention, it would be more beneficial to have teams of
trained civilian investigators under the guidance/direction of PCs and sergeants. A civilian investigator
is dedicated to that role and will always be there to provide stability and consistency. Where as a PC
may be subject to the previously discussed commitments in the first question. Secondly they are less
expensive but will be competent to the task if trained properly and also subject to less extreme pay
scale rises, making the allocation of funding more predictable. There will also be experienced officers
directing the team to ensure there are no issues. Another consideration along the lines of cost is - do
they all need to be based in London? A large part of investigating is primarily CCTV requests,
statement taking and other office based enquiries or case building. Generally speaking this can all be
done from posts outside of London, saving London weighting and allowances, also giving outer
London posts fair access to the teams. When a statement or scene visit is required in London then
they are often only a short train ride away if a London based person cannot assist. That will also save
on rent costs. Rather than increase spending to meet this, a ruthless cut of resources is needed in
FHQ to realign with the priorities of our requirements and commitments. This particularly relates to the
current mass of unnecessary civilians and office based police people. A small example would be the
audit teams for various operations like trafalgar, it is now business as usual patrolling, so do we need
teams of people sifting through and analysing the forms PCs have to spend valuable time filling out?
Or can we trust PC's and supervisors to ensure these areas are patrolled effectively now they are
identified hotspots? A second small example is on disruption - when you complete a task relating to
disruption it has to be sent off to four separate departments, uploaded onto a psp and fill in a form.
Surely we are not so well off that we can afford four teams analysing the same data and we are not so
well staffed on the front line that we can waste time filling out multiple forms and spreadsheets for
bean counters? All these portfolios and squads and teams that seem to amass resources at the
expensesnof frontline policing is unnecessary and detrimental.
Police officers need to be given support if they are to investigate volume crime At the moment they
are not being released to investigate crimes due to shortage of officers and other operations
Keep officers on the trains and at stations. Have a low level investigation team.
Police officers as first responders will initially attend any scene where there is a reported crime.
Victims want to know that afterwards the correct investigator will then take the lead, timely and
effectively. Having a small regionally based team with a lot of experience is fine but with those crime
types causing sufficient harm to warrant creation in the first place, I wonder if time/effort will just
become a by product against reality.
The above outlines the position well. There are 2 BTPs, London and non-London, and the latter
should be merged in to local home office forces. The former could be a standalone but this doesn't
really make sense, although neither having COLP as a sovereign entity but that's considered ok.
A case progression team based in custody that can provide a better investigation service than uniform
officers who are required to rush back out onto Trafalgar Patrols
Not be so focused on just London but focus on busy out of London areas the public travel to and from
Are you asking "Tell us how to do our job" ? Surely you have the policing expertise to decide this
yourselves without unqualified guidance which is going to be so variable as to be as pointless as it is
28
OFFICIAL
inconclusive.
There must be enough officers to deal with it so they don't get bogged down, it seems strange that
you won't have officers dedicated to sexual offences outside of London, are these not as important,
every other police force have dedicated officers in every area.
Employ civilian police staff as investigators to free up police officers and get them back on the beat
Q4 Is there anything else we should consider, in relation to the structure,
which would help us to respond to the changing needs of the public in future
and increases or decreases in crime?
With the way the crime is reported should be dealt wit has correctly and sensitive such as rape
officers and female should take the statement.
What monitoring / supervisory structure will be used to ensure that workload is balanced and the BTP
deliver on the reallocation of crime effectively? How will this be different from what was in place in
the past which failed to recognise or act on this imbalanced work loading?
The one thing most people want to see is a visible presence- the proposed changes would indicate
that this issue will be addressed within the limitations of resources. It may be seen to be old fashioned
but the presence of a uniformed police officer provides both reassurance and deterrence even though
I appreciate that this is sometimes not the most efficient use of an officers time.
Where there's engineering works, or certain events, passengers may take much less typical routes,
so coverage would need to remain flexible to scale up to this.
Stakeholder/payee concerns MUST be addressed
Its the same answer as Q3 Do you have enough officers? I suspect not
As London itself is so much more densely populated than anywhere else in the south I think there
should be a dedicated central London sub division to deal with such a large percentage of crimes.
More officers in london and the south east.
A return to assigning regular beat officers and patrols to each area is a great form of reassurance.
Creating "super-hubs" where everyone multi-tasks and covers no set area may look an effective
solution on paper, but it creates a 'disconnect' between the police and everyone else. Having regular
officers in the same areas builds trust and rapport with the public and transport workers alike, which
surely should be one of the BTP's main aims.
Constantly developing technical skills both in analytical and technical skills
Yes, rigidity is bad. It is important that officers don't feel devalued as it will affect hiw they act around
the public.
Ensure that we keep distances realistic for local people. Not everyone can drive 20 miles across rural
areas and public trNsport cuts and price rises make this harder Harm can be a major one off. This
is prioritised. But low level repeteive issues are mot newsworthy or target achievers. Harm can be little
and often though Please retain harm definitions that accommodate
Continue to use social media in the way that you do. The DLR account is clearly setting a high
standard and other teams should do the same.
Having a police presence makes a huge difference. During the assault on my partner the btp had
gone home and left railway staff to deal with drunk passengers.
A dedicated reporting application for smartphones that enable contact to be made immediately and, in
necessary cases, discreetly.
I would imagine that you already correlate what time crimes happen I.e rush hours, late at night etc. I
am aware that different crimes happen at different times of day. I would hope that this proactive teams
base their patrols around those significant times relating to the crimes committed. So I would imagine
that sexual offences happen late at night, when possibly intoxicated individuals are more prevelant on
the weekend. I however understand that there are anomalies for offences but based on the average
times crimes are committed, patrols should he focused around this.
Have special team's that focus on dealing with certain types of crime. They get to know regular
offenders and about that type of crime.
Yes, the actual crimes and situations that people face on the railway compared to elsewhere. In a
busy town, the public are less concerned by louts than they are on a station or on a train. So why are
there so so few officers in those places when it matters? Get back to basics.
29
OFFICIAL
More use of Specials. As a free resource they are not used enough especially at evenings and
weekends when most can volunteer. They only seem to come out on big events.
Don't lock the investigation teams into too specific an area or crime. It makes it too easy for them to
go "well that's not my area" or "we don't investigate that" in an effort to avoid work or responsibility. By
all means base them at a variety of posts over the divisions stably, but don't allow them to fall into that
pattern of going "we are based at A so we only cover A" or "that's not X crime, it is a Y crime". For
example there was a bike squad based at post A, who only covered the bike crimes in the A patch,
yet they are teamed with smaller Post B but never help them with their investigations. And when bike
crime fell and vap offences increased, they did not investigate those offences because they are the
bike team, despite having a decreased workload. They also began not investigating thefts from bikes,
or criminal damage to bikes because they are not strictly speaking bike thefts. If the teams are kept
flexible in terms of responsibility then they are more adaptable. Don't pigeon hole them and allow
them to narrow their field of responsibility.
More police officers on front line duties
Local police forces base officers in cities according to greatest demand. Specialist teams are then
aligned to divisions to carry out specialist functions. You need to ensure that officers are based where
they are needed first to establish what impact this has locally before you then start trying to guess
where to place specialist teams. There seems to be an over simplification of the process here.
Besides didn't btp already have a restructure that was meant to better the public. All I have seen from
my local area around Derby is an actual decline
Have flexible teams to tackle crime and not just be focused on football
Are you asking "Tell us how to do our job" ? Surely you have the policing expertise to decide this
yourselves without unqualified guidance which is going to be so variable as to be as pointless as it is
inconclusive.
If there is an issue about the size of the area you cover don't have 1 or 2 centralised units, have main
offices then smaller offices of 1 or 2 people who are based further out, they could call on others to
help if something big happened. We did this in the unit I was with in the army and it worked well.
Q5 What else could we do to ensure that a new crime investigation structure
would deliver on our commitment to tackling sexual offences on the railway
and enable us to respond to increased reporting as a result of awarenessraising campaigns and increased public confidence?
It seems like back-pedalling now. BTP announced six months ago they were about to get rid of the
sexual offence team, channel 4 does a piece on that in the news and suddenly it becomes a crime
priority. Pathetic! Shame on you!
Officers should believe what the victims are saying about Sexual assaults and the victims should have
more support from theach crime that has happened.
Is there any impact to consider on policing numbers/ investigation undertaking/detection rates while
officers are trained / upskilled for new workloads? Is there any transition work risks to be mitigated
against in regard to structure to take us from the old to the new? What impact on existing policy
resource will forming this new sexual offences team mean?
Publicity of successful outcomes may encourage reporting and increase confidence. It may
encourage victims to come forward.
This need specialist knowledge. Is this assured under the new model?
There needs to be far more co-operation and collusion with partner organisations, such as TfL,
London Underground, trade unions, passenger groups and station retail tenants.
High visibility both in policing and rail staff to reduce the opportunity of an offence both in rail estates
and on trains. Availability of specialist trained officers and victim support. Education for rail users.
This seems like an excellent idea. Very much like the dip squad out if CLPS, it seems sensible to
station people in Lomdon - but of course it is important to safeguard against inconsistent service
elsewhere in the country. Perhaps specialist training could be given to more officers around the
country.
A text message receiving service
Keep the sexual offences teams as they are. They provide a very good service
30
OFFICIAL
Police presence and not only focus on London.
Simply more people to assist with the workload. Administration takes a heavy toll irrespective of what
Tier Crime is being investigated. I believe a pool of Special Constables (to be sifted through a set
criteria) should be used to help as much admin as possible. I'm ex Forces and am looking at
becoming a Special Constable. I have had many ex colleagues and know several women who have
been sexually assaulted, albeit I know men are subject to sexual assaults too. If I was able to assist in
any way to help towards a common goal of bringing more offenders to justice in a shorter time period,
allowing full time Officers to concerntrate on actually doing their job, then any help would be worth it.
Ensure that the good work in victim liaison and contact is maintained.
16 officers isn't enough. More needed considering sick days, annual leave, maternity paternity leave
etc
Strong social media advertisements would target the younger individuals, almost as far as shocking
reconstruction advertisements, with statements such as THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, REPORT-don't
be scare. Come up with a caption or something that is easily read. Easy access to reporting
mechanisms, text reporting to 101/999. If a female is singled out on her own on a train/tube if she can
get to the toilet she can text to report and that train operator is alerted. Give trains and tubes
identification numbers to allow this for precise location. Train third party operators effectively on
how to deal with a victim of sexual assault I.e precautions for preservation of evidence.
Ensure there is a mixed staff ratio of gender of officers
Make sure the officers aren't simply desk investigators and are t so laden with crimes they can't
bevproactive and be out in the areas where crimes are suffered and more importantly... when they are
suffered.
Make people reporting such offences also be aware at an early stage prior to the offence being
allocated for investigation that in order for the offender to be caught/prosecuted they will be required
to make a formal statement/be willing to attend court to give evidence. Too many cases are allocated
for investigation only for the complainant to be contacted and they do not wish to take the matter any
further, this results in the investigators time being taken away from those offences where the
complainant is willing to proceed and results in unnecessary enqs such as cctv requests being made.
The offence should only be allocated for investigation once its established that the victim is willing to
supply a statement etc.
Morr officers on trains especially during rush hour and targeting major commuting routes not just in
London. Many officers are used at hub stations as security guards for retailers. BTP should be
protecting the travelling public not shops who are unwilling to provide there own security
Keep the dedicated teams
No further comment - seems pretty covered. I appreciate the statement but it is impossible to
eradicate sexual offences in any environment and to state that as an aim is naive and over reaching.
A top class standard of victim support and investigation isn't, and a drive to identify and deal with
offenders isn't, but a target to completely eradicate any crime type is just posturing.
More proactive teams to prevent the offences happening More police on the train at relevant times
Continue to have a dedicated sexual offences unit who are dealing with victims of these crimes daily
and have vital experience in dealing with these victims. By getting rid of such units the force will be
de-skilling a very specialist unit.
Make sure the unit stays together and closer work with home office forces. Aware that at one point
BTP were going to get rid of the Sexual offences unit.
How often does this crime type occur? How serious a sexual offence takes place? Exposing oneself
or actual physical assault? You tried scraping your team in London which caused the greatest harm
yet this was an area where should a team was needed - hence the outcry. Are you actually wanting to
'serve the local community' or just justify your methods of saving money?
It's not about the structure, it's about the culture of leadership and how a officers / investigators treat
and deal with people. The notion of a customer still seems quite lost
You never hear anything over the tannoy at train stations or on trains could this be done to tell people
and scare off people looking to commit this type of crime, surely prevention is better than
investigation. Do the metropolitan police have a similar unit that you could work with as it may be the
same people doing this. I still think it's wrong only having a dedicated team in London, it's feels like
everyone else isn't as important.
Ensure the public feels safe. More visible presence on trains, especially at night where the increasing
trend to remove conductors is on the increase. The public need to know if they use the rail services
and if a group of drunken louts start shouting and swearing and making everyone else feel
31
OFFICIAL
intimidated. This sort of anti social behaviour is dealt with quickly and robustly
Q6 What else could we do to maximise proactive opportunities to deter and
detect sexual offences on the railway?
Keep the sexual offence team!
You should have more leaflet and more videos about rape and how you can stop it.
railways and people get hurt in there own home.
No comment
It not just on the
As above
When crammed on 4 car trains with 12 cars worth of people inappropriate contact happens. Tackle
the cause - the likes of southern putting passenger safety at the bottom of the priority list.
Increased presence on early morning and late night trains, particularly on branch lines, that will have
many more unmanned stations
Train transport staff nationwide to recognise and report sexual offences and perpetrators acting
suspiciously in order to assist the BTP in detecting and preventing perpetrators from carrying out
crimes.
Increase visible police officer presence and make more effective use of station and trains CCTV.
Consider the absolute closure of public conveniences where no solution can be found (or afforded) to
prevent sexual misdemeanours within the facility. Make more use of rail employees' and station retail
tenants' local knowledge to structure and execute police exercises in the area.
Plenty of social media - short snappy videos - 15 seconds is ideal length that will auto play and work
with sound on and off.
In the Midlands we are looking at late night opportunists with many teenage possibilities. A text alert
or text report service or even a survey on teen views on what nights.times.stations
Police presence and guards on the trains. When there is no staff around it is a scary and vulnerable
place to be.
Life size carbon cut outs/Stickers of Police Officers should definately be on every tube entrance,
especially over the Christmas/New Year Period, and a slogan to be determined on the sticker. "We
are watching YOU...Sexual Assaults will not be tolerated!" People will laugh and mock, but it will make
people think. Also, have a bulleted and simplistic advice guide to help people. 'Stay in well lit areas'
'Inform someone of your journey' 'Refrain from being on your phone on the tube/train' 'Be alert/Be
Safe' or words similar to that effect. It may seem a fruitless job, but if you don't try, you won't know. It
would be cost effective and no impact on staffing levels.
High visibility patrols on late night suburban and cross border services to maximise the safety and
prevention message whilst enabling detection.
More proactive teams that actually go out and look for it rather than just following up fast time actions
of investigations when they come to fruition.
DETER: again big poster "BTP PATROL THIS AREA" or "DON'T BE A VICTIM" provide deterrent
mechanisms i.e rape alarms in mini workshops stands. Give PCSO's these to issue to apparent
vulnerable indiviuals. Advertise the use of preemptive strikes (non condolence of violence) PUNCH,
RUN, SCREAM - Don't be a victim to sexual assault. DETECT: offer confidential reporting stands,
to allow for intelligence, if people feel vulnerable they can report this on a leaflet type form post it in a
secure box. Allow for intelligence gathering.
See previous page. It happens because the criminals know you aren't around. Simple.
Ensure that frontline officers are aware of and confident to obtain forensic evidence, also that when
taking a first account they are not afraid of asking "sexual" questions to establish what has occurred.
More publicity of successful convictions and their consequences ie sex offenders register, dedicated
intelligence unit to identify offenders and link series offences.
More plane clothes operations
Keep the dedicated team
Keep empowering people to report it, keep investigating it fully and keep going after the offenders.
Short of sending undercover people out there with clothes covered in smart water to better prove
people have touched them, while another has a covert camera to confirm the offence. I cannot
32
OFFICIAL
currently think of anything. Although is that a bad idea? Probably.
High visabilty patrols and plain cloths teams to proactively patrol to deter offences
Have some plain clothed and uniformed officers on trains as well as in stations. Also in the future
make sure all LU trains are fitted with CCTV recording.
As above.
More officers and more patrols
Again this comes down to ensuring you have sufficient officers located along the main lines to be
there in the first place. Otherwise what is the point
Not just the usual high visible policing but also use of more plain clothes and cover patrols - you need
to make people think that just because there isn't someone around in a hi-viz it doesn't mean there
aren't police officers around
See answer 5 sorry
Better CCTV on trains More posters on how to contact BTP by text if you feel intimidated. There is
hardly any information if at all on trains
Q7 What else should we consider, when creating a new crime allocation policy
and crime investigation structure, that would help us tackle violence against
rail staff?
I am concerned that allocating verbal abuse cases to uniformed officer and allocating physical
assaults of rail staff to tier 3 & 4 investigators will lead to a 'deskilling' of uniformed officers as they
would no longer be investigating physical assaults on staff.
Uniformed officers are here to patrol the stations, trains, etc, not to investigate petty crimes. I want to
see my local officer when I take the train. Knowing that he is in an office doesn't make me feel safer.
Having first hand experience in this field and day to day contact with staff in London who are routinely
assaulted, I have spoken to many of these already demoralised individuals who find it incredibly
disheartening should such a significant change to the service received by the work placed violence
unit be implemented. These people be they Revenue, platform or gate line staff already operate in a
high pressure area where millions of commuters interact with them daily. London rail staff have a
unique position within the rail industry and therefore should be afforded a proper and apt level of
service. It could be argued that the train operating companies customers could be affected in the
medium to long term due to staff sickness or staff leaving their positions due to the violence they
endure without proper expedient recourse by the British Transport Police. Work place violence
investigations would be severely effected due to reduced man power which includes support staff who
are due to be made redundant after this process is concluded. Finally I believe the best way to tackle
violence against staff is to continue to support them in the prosecution of criminals. The term 'lip
service' has been mentioned on more than one occasion when speaking to staff who realise that BTP
intend to have police constables investigate their crimes as part of their other duties within their
working day. It is my conclusion that this part of the re-organisation would severely hinder the tackling
of violence against staff.
Everything needs to be done to protect the staff off assualt and could have protective gear for railway
staff etc
No comment
Once again, publicity is the key here- make it known that offence of this kind will be investigated and
dealt with. Likewise, celebrate (?) successes. As someone who working in the industry I would like
to see better communication between both parties. Rail Staff should be encouraged to report
incidents and feedback given to them as to the results. I appreciate that staff assaults can be difficult
to quantify and are dependant on the victims perception and personality- what one person thinks is an
assault could be seen by another as just part of the job. Is more guidance needed to staff- obviously a
thrown punch is an assault but is being called a w*****r an assault? Again this all depends on the
context in which it is said.
Maximising the case against offenders - odds are the twit the thumps a ticket collector never has a
ticket and could be done for that as well as assualt.
Implement Personal Safety Training for rail staff as carried out by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust
Railway staff have the right to carry out their responsibilities without fear of violence or abuse. All
categories of workplace violence should be investigated by specially trained officers ideally in
33
OFFICIAL
detective grades. There should be no need to differentiate between physical violence and verbal
abuse, all are totally unacceptable. I do not know what penalties are available to the courts on
conviction but obviously they need beefing up to act as a deterrent. But again are there enough
suitably trained officers to investigate? I think not!!
I would retain the workplace violence unit but reduce it in size and only investigate assaults and racial
crime. Being in a customer facing role staff should expect some sort of swearing etc. Rail staff need
to have a high level of tolerance than a member of the public
See previous answers.
Work collaboratively with unions. Occupational health and staff themselves to reduce the possibility of
situations occurring.
Assaults against railway staff are very serious, and should rightly be considered a high priority
It
is an absolute fact however that too many members of staff appear to believe the zero tolerance
approach gives them carte blanche to act anyway they like with the public, sometimes verging into
hostility themselves, and then using the BTP to solve a fight they needlessly started.
It is important
that education is available so that the majority of cases that are genuine are dealt with fully to give
other members of staff confidence to report offences - but also, it should be made clear that all
allegations will be investigated without fear or favour.
No comment Support to staff
Deal with it as you currently are
Not closing btp offices on stations. Having Police presence. Have sos phones on platforms direct to
btp.
Experienced officers investigate violence offences
Ensure that staff who are forward facing receive conflict management and resolution training in
addition to railway revenue related material. Staff should also have access to a dedicated reporting
portal, to enable specialist units to tackle workplace violence effectively.
An anonymous reporting system to start investigations for staff.
Why are railway staff different to the normal public?
No tolerance policy. As then there is no ambiguity of what would be tolerated
Deleting the last bullet point on this page! Same service for all victims... except if you work in london
you get a 'capable investigator'. That sounds awful from a couple of angles, particularly towards
uniform officers. Your best shot at tackling this other than what has already been mentioned in other
answers... is to get your investigators on side. Empower them to deal with the nonsense jobs as
nonsense. Empower them to challenge those members of rail staff that cry wolf, and have an
agreement where such incidents are recorded by the TOC on that staffs appraisal. Genuine crimes
should of course be dealt with properly BUT no more or less favourably than somebody who is
assaulted in WHSmiths on the concourse. This creates elite status and divisiveness.
Training rail staff how to speak to people and know when to back away and call police. Also be made
aware what police require if they are involved in an incident
A victim of crime is a victim of crime whether this is a MOS or MOP, prevention would be better by
BTP having more interaction with TOCs training departments
Finally. A glimpse of equality.
Staff to receive better training to prevent assaults taking place
Increased police presence and if possible have staff wearing body worn cameras
Have staff had the appropriate customer services training. Not all appear to be customer focused or
in the correct role.
Common assault on staff being investigated by tier 3/4 investigation teams? This is a neighbourhood
investigation issue and tier 3/4 should not be taken away from investigating serious crime to do this.
It is fine taking investigations off front line public facing officers, so long as there are sufficient back
room officers to come out and fill the void. It sounds very fancy saying detectives do this or that, but if
you do not have enough officers who may be carrying hundreds of cases then victims will loose
straight away that personal touch meaning a decrease in overal satisfaction
This is political pandering to ATOC and completely unacceptable to me as a paying customer - why
should a member of staff (some of which are rude and while not justifying an assault do not help deescalate the risk, indeed sometimes quite the opposite) get a higher level of service than those who
actually pay for the service, and therefore indirectly fund BTP? This will do nothing to help the notion
amongst some train staff that BTP is a partisan force
34
OFFICIAL
Surely it depends on the level of violence, if it is a push or a shove then any one can deal with it, even
a punch can be dealt with by anyone unless it causes a bad injury then detectives should deal with it.
Anything that is serious should go to a detective. In the current system who does better, the
dedicated unit or the uniformed staff is solving the problem. If all crimes against rail staff go to
detectives will this bog them down along with the other work, then the victim care will be effected.
BAN people who assault staff. It is not a right to use the railway, it is a private company who are
running a business. If someone was fighting in a shop or a pub they would be banned. Why not the
trains? The public would be more happy with this robust attitude to people who think it is acceptable
to assault rail staff. BTP cannot be everywhere, especially if this proposed merger with Police
Scotland goes ahead, if it does there must be a reduction in the one to one service BTP provide
Q8 What else should we consider, when creating a new crime allocation policy
and crime investigation structure, that would help us to ensure all fatality
investigations are conducted professionally, with dignity for the deceased and
excellent levels of care and support for families and loved ones left behind?
You should have place for the family to speak to people about what happened to family member
suicide and make it more aware.
Is there an issue in the length of time these take to investigate or getting the right officers to site to
deal with the incidents? Is this why the resource allocation is increasing as described?
My experience of BTP officers and staff dealing with this has always been positive although I can only
speak from a railway perspective. My only comment would be to ensure in the case of non suspicious
fatalities, that there is a dialogue between the railway and BTP to ensure alignment with regards to
investigation and any recommendations following it.
Small fatality investigation teams could be considered. Whereby the dedicated officers and staff carry
out all aspects of fatality investigation/family aftercare in a specific region
How will fatalities allocated to msoc receive an appropriate, timely response from a centralised unit?
How will you ensure initial investigations are appropriate from local officers? Will this increase delays
caused by waiting for officers to arrive?
Don't get the same people doing this job all year? Have officers as consultants, but I imagine
repeated exposure to this may impair your goals.
Consult with specialist bereavement charities to ensure a victim-led approach.
Non-suspicious- why can't uniform officers investigate? HO forces have shifted to civilian
investigators/coroners officers for sudden deaths- why not BTP?
Improved communications and liaison with the relevant people and organisations, such as the railway
companies, trade unions, Victim Support and trauma support groups.
Consider others affected by the fatality - e.g. Staff on site, witnesses. etc
Ensure family liaison is fully supportive for the family of the deceased.
Deal with it as you currently are
Take into consideration the Railway staff. Talk to the TRIM practitioners.
FLOs, Dedicated Fatality investigation teams on Divisions, ie. Two on the Pennines, one on the
Midlands and one on the Western for C-Div
The dignity of the deceased supersedes all other considerations but the impact of delays on the
network are also a consideration but not a deciding factor in how an incident is managed. This is a
traumatic incident that affects all. First responders, relatives, staff and passengers too. Post incident
management is key and BTP manage this well, taking the listed factors above, into consideration.
Support for those left behind is important but almost all chose to take their own life. This is not a crime
and not something police time should be taken up with. This is a matter for mental health
professionals
Better TRIM procedures post event. There is very little care for officers afterwards and this most
certainly affects future incidents.
I believe the present system works, I also agree more investigators are needed in this sensitive area
There is still a large role for uniformed and non uniformed police officers here. When it comes to
fatalities I think everyone is a team. The uniformed PC's will still be the first on scene and may well be
35
OFFICIAL
giving the death message too, in my experience everything after that is handled by B-Fit/Soco and
that seems to work well. No recommendations in this area because I have not observed any issues
with current practice.
Dedicated proactive team to deal with fatalities and more support to officers
This is the same as the previous questions. Increase of certain specialist personnel must not see a
decline in the general police officer as this is counter productive. Having more specialists thought
without impacting on day to day core business however can only be a good thing as general day to
day policing can occur without too much abstration
Why is this about structure?? It is about values and personal responsibility - that you are asking about
how this should be structured is concerning and reflective of an out of date approach to policing and
providing services to the community
If you have a dedicated unit / investigators this would be good for the family of the dead person and it
will mean they get the same standard of service.
I think BTP already deal with each fatality with a high degree of dignity and excellent level of support
for the families. More support should be offered to the staff /officers who have to deal with this
increasing occurrence
Q9 What else can we do to ensure a new crime investigation structure doesn’t
unintentionally lead to volume crimes being given priority for investigation
over crimes that cause more harm?
Give all crimes to specialist teams so they are investigated properly and not given to a random
uniformed officer who doesn't know what he is doing.
No comment
Provided the allocation system proposed works correctly, I don't see this being a problem. The only
assurance I would suggest would be a monitoring and review process (ideally independent) to ensure
the process is working.
How does this fit with the victims charter- a victim is a victim and should be treated as such.
Appreciating charter requirements of notification, these should be fully complied with- 100%
It seems to that this survey is all about allocation and prioritisation of crimes. Surely everything needs
to be investigated properly and more money is going to be needed. Now is the time to put pressure on
the new Tory government and the new London Mayor to improve things
Effective self-regulation will need to be utilised to ensure efficiency levels and targets are being met
and maintained.
Make sure there are enough officers allocated to each dept including spare capacity for leave and
sickness. The current level of staffing falls sadly short leaving small teams covering massive areas
with no immediate backup, even from the civilian Police as they are understaffed too.
Don't be driven by statistic
Be driven by matters that matter to the public. Be guided by the
British crime survey, but never forget that what may appear to be a so-called petty crime to Sam,
could devastate the person he reports that crime
People should be at the heart of everything.
Officers in volume crime will be swamped and the service victims get will be terrible. It has been
tried by home office forces and failed. Why?
Don't advertise the fact that any initiatives are concentrating on London.
Asses them on an impact chart what level of impact the have on; IP, Witnesses, Rail Network and
society
Simply stick to the criteria and random audits (unannounced) should be carried out to ensure this
doesn't happen
Volume crimes should become the focus of specialist units that do not detract from business as usual
priorities. That way, customers do not become overly concerned by the increased presence of police
tackling an issue. This sometimes has a negative as opposed to positive impact on public perception.
Send out questionnaires and ask for peoples opinions on scenarios, what crimes would effect them
more and long term. Those crimes that would short term effects and annoyance.
Good management, leadership and close inter agency working is one main area that would hopefully
ensure that crimes that cause more harm are given priority
Make sure the volume and series crime team get allocated work, rather than cherry pick it.
36
OFFICIAL
Monitor the amount of offences that an officer is allocated to investigate, the more a workload
increases the more probability that a crime that causes more harm will be prioritised.
To ensure they meet the public interest test and hold account to train operating companies and
retailers. For example a store is costantly getting items stolen. It is unwilling to install CCTV or have
security staff as they just pass the issue to BTP. If crime advice is not followed then resources
should not be wasted on those areas
Keep the pro-active pickpocket unit. - SPECIALISTS!
Some crimes are minor. Got to be realistic as some low levels crimes may never be solved.
Dedicated teams who investigate this crime type will ensure resources are only used and deployed
where needed. This though will be dependant on what you class as volume crime and how frequent it
is. Having specialist teams sitting by not working or not as often as is required is a waste of money
and man power
Again, it is concerning you ask this question - you should know this and I presume you do know how
to monitor and manage performance data, undertake trend and root cause analysis.
Even volume crimes have a victim, I live in Lancashire and the police here cannot cope, sometimes
all you get is a phone call a few days later after reporting a crime. They have forgotten that crime
effects people in different ways, what may be minor to you is major to them.
The crimes should be allocated for investigation by a team who have access to more information
therefore they can see the bigger picture. Police officers only deal with an incident as it is allocated to
them. Crime should be allocated as a priority on a traffic light system (green, amber red), this way the
officer knows where to focus first regardless of how many of the high volume incidents they have
Q 10 Are there any likely impacts that our proposals may have on particular
groups of people that you think we should be taking into consideration?
Hate crime should be a priority and should be alt with by special teams.
Should have help for everyone
No Comment
No
I feel the more centralisation that takes place the more likely Scottish people are to suffer. With lower
crime rates in Scotland it is likely that any unit based in England but with responsibilities covering
Scotland would quickly become out of practice and de skilled. I feel more should be done to recognise
the specialist nature of railway policing in Scotland
As a force, you must be fast to react to changing traveling trends and temporary events so that if any
of the above groups change their typical habits, they remain with the same coverage.
There are always going to be groups within our society who are responsible for a disproportion
number of crimes and these are the same groups who bleat the loudest. All police forces should try to
relate more with the leaders of these communities. Realistically it probably won't help much but you
have to try
You need to consider officer welfare and there right to a family life.
Any negative impact on particular groups usually only becomes apparent after the introduction of new
measures. So it is important that progress is rigidly monitored and any redress is appropriately
applied.
Make sure the crimes are investigated fairly, not just concentrating on sexual orientation or ethnicity.
Covering all bases and not being driven by "we must investigate 17 ethnic hate crimes per week" or
we've got to prioritise sexual harassment as we've not done any for a week.
Nine based in consultation document and survey.
Talk to your staff.
I don't see these proposals having any negative impact. All factors regarding respect for diversity
should become an overarching strategy in any decision making process.
No, and you know it doesn't. Why even write it?
Treat everyone fairly regardless of all the above
37
OFFICIAL
You have not included rail staff in the above list yet it seems they are also a 'special or protected
group'. Why do you have to classify this, in this way? There is no doubt these are protected
characteristics set out in legislation but it is disappointing you choose to limit this and it should not
restrict in this way e.g. What about mental health or psychological crisis which is not a disability,
children and other vulnerable people who may well have greater risk attached to them, the homeless
who are at particular risk...?
It will be hard to make sure there are enough officers in uniform and I assume more investigators. If
you don't have enough trained investigators all of the above (if they are victims) will be effected as
they wont get the same level of service. BTP at the minute do seem to better than other police forces
when dealing with the public. I have friends in Manchester police and they say that not having
uniform officers dealing with things and giving most stuff to investigators caused them problems with
impacted all people.
No matter who you are, crime affects everyone
38