[Mark Davies]

Don't get me started on this! Oh, too late - you already have . . .

I am well known within my force for being rather vocal against any kind of personal targets. A short while ago I came to the Chief Constable's attention when protesting on this issue on the Force's internal discussion forum. I got hauled into the office and the forum was closed down, but I stood my ground on it and continue to fight it.

We don't have targets for traffic matters (just as well as I never do any!) but we now do have personal targets for crime detection. I do (and have always) exceeded these targets, so they are not a personal issue for me, but I do think it is an ethical issue.

The moment you begin to measure something and give people a target, it influences their behaviour. Now clearly that is the intention - they want to try and increase our detection rates. But it is lazy and ill-conceived management. I work so hard and am rushed about so much that all I can do is go to the incidents I am sent to and deal with them. If there is a crime in it that can be detected, I detect it. If there isn't, I don't. It's that simple. There is little I can do to influence which incidents I go to, so frankly my detection rates are out of my hands. Last month I got 9 detections and was the division's golden-boy - this month only 1. It all depends on what I get to deal with.

So how does an officer increase their detection rates to keep on target? What worries me is that people will find themselves being arrested and charged for offences when, though technically they may have committed the offence, it may have been more appropriate to deal with it another way.

A classic example is people who are drunk and disorderly. Could be a young lad who's got himself absolutely legless for the first time and doesn't know what he is doing. He comes across some officers and starts being a complete arse. The way to deal with this is to lock him up for being drunk and disorderly, put him into a cell until he is sober and then release him with a verbal ticking off. We get a potential problem off the streets, he learns a lesson and walks away unscathed. However, this behaviour also falls within offences under the public order act, so what is happening now is that said individual gets charged with that offence, goes to court and gets a criminal record that effects the rest of his life. And why? For no other reason than to get an extra detection and a tick in a box.

It's a bloody disgrace - and believe me there's not a single officer below the rank of Inspector who is in any way in favour of it. The result is that we just don't arrest these people at all now. We have to find another way to deal with it to avoid someone getting a record. Of course, while they are pissed up they don't appreciate all the trouble we are going to in order to help them out and the situation can turn into a real nightmare. There's no increase in detections and all it has done is taken away a useful tool and made our job harder.

If it angers you, do us all a favour and write to your MP to complain!