Bill Bratton, Former chief of the New York and LA Police HARDtalk

UK? Bill Bratton, welcome to HARDtalk. You have 40 years of

experience in policing. Are you firmly convinced that the ideas you

have two or far have universal application? That they are as

relevant in London as they are in New York city? I certainly do. I

have seen first-hand how some of those ideas have worked in other

places around the world. How many ideas which were formulated in

Britain have worked in my country. Picking up on that notion that they

are applicable - what has David Cameron ask you to? Very

specifically to participate in a conference that is now being formed

for 12th October and 13th, to be held in London with several dozen

experts from Great Britain, the United States and other places, to

talk about gang violence, how to reduce it, and how to prevent it

from happening. Your role has been characterised as an adviser. Would

that be fair? Not so much an adviser to the Prime Minister

himself, but to the Home Office. The Home Office, as you know in

your country, is responsible for public safety. As people around the

world are well aware - we have had a serious public order issue in

recent weeks in the UK. In her early August we saw a dramatic and

shocking scenes of violence on our streets -- in early August. Have

you spoken to Mr Cameron personally since those riots? Only briefly, at

which time he extended the invitation to join the conference

which is now on the calendar. you have any concern that the idea

that you will come - you will participate in this conference, you

will put your ideas into the mix - that has attracted some suspicion,

indeed commit irritation from senior police officers in the

United Kingdom. -- it indeed, irritation. That is unfortunate. My

relationship with my counterparts in the British police service is

exemplary. I received my CBE from the British Queen for furthering

relationship between my Police Service and British police services.

I think that is unfortunate. We have been working closely together

for many decades now. That relationship will move forward in a

very co-operative manner. In a sense, that is why point.

Relationships have been forged over many years, but one of those top

cops, Sergiou audit said that the idea of reaching across the

Atlantic for policing ideas was, to use his words, stupid. He told me

on the programme the other day that the British model of policing is

fundamentally different from the American one. He has his opinion

and I have mine - I don't think there are significant differences.

The goal of both police services us usce crime. I think in

the United States, unfortunately because of our history of gun-

related violence, the violence we experience is, unfortunately for us,

more significant than that which you experience in the British Isles.

That is our failing. The majority of your police officers voluntarily

and willingly go about their duties unarmed. A circumstance that could

not be, unfortunately, tolerated in my country. I think we have more

similarities than differences. I think we have a lot to learn from

each other's experiences. In particular the issue of gangs. The

issue on which I have been asked to speak to. My successor in the LAPD

has received an invitation as well. The idea it is to share what we

know in terms of what has worked and what has not worked. I think

our experience with gangs is a much longer experience in terms of their

history that we have. Isn't the point really about what has not

worked? There are about 400 gangs in Los Angeles - many of them very

heavily armed. The profound problem you have with that culture - you

presenting a representative analysis in the UK - that is a bit

of a stretch. Let's look at it in medical terms. Could you say that

doctors in the British Isles would not want to talk to their

colleagues about diseases that have similarities and understand how we

are beginning to effectively deal with our disease which is more

serious but has many similarities? We do not want to talk with

somebody who had 400 patients to work on? In my case, 400 gangs -

rather than speaking with someone who has had no patience at all. I

think you want to go where problems are more serious before they become

more serious in your own domain to see how you might prevent both

problems from becoming more serious. I think there is a lot to be shared.

It just strikes me that your mind set might be rather different from

those people at the top of policing in the UK. You were quoted - you

watched the riots unfold on your television and you were quoted

afterwards as saying that the English riots... "young people have

been emboldened by quarters police tactics and lenient sentencing".

Are you suggesting a British police have got it wrong - that they are

too soft? That is a decision you will have to make. In terms of the

United States and the unfortunate experience we have had with our

riots, in Los Angeles in the early 1990s that took in excess of 50

lives - a lot of gun-related violence - the circumstances I was

commenting on was that there had been a delayed police response. No

response to some of what was occurring in the early stages. That

was a mistake there was made in Los Angeles in the 1990s that

contributed significantly to that right getting out of control. In

policing you do not give up to a Tory - as quickly as possible you

begin with appropriate levels of force. -- give up territory.

have talked about needing to apply "a doctrine of escalating Paul's".

You have also said that you would like the criminal element to fear

the police -- escalating force. These are comments which my

previous guest said successful policing is when the public do not

fear thepolice. It is when the public trust the cops, not pure

them. -- not fear them.... Their new head of the Metropolitan Police

is using exactly my language - that the criminal element among the

public need to be in the era, while the vast majority of the law

abiding public need to respect and be respected by the police -- be

Enfield. We can mince words, if you want, but again, I would look to

the leadership of the Metropolitan Police and his opening a Commons at

the time of his appointment - he basically said the same thing I

said. -- opening comments. Criminals need to fear the police,

not a pure brutality or being abused but feared that if they

violate a law, if they violate an ordnance that the police will,

within their powers, do something to control that behaviour and

change that behaviour. They will. Lawfully, compassionately and

consistently. In rich neighbourhoods and poor

neighbourhoods. But when you talk about having more arrows in the

quiver, as you did - it points to your belief that the British police,

who, traditionally, have not armed themselves, should use different

kinds of weapons - whether that be rubber bullets, water cannon,

Tasers, or routinely arming themselves with guns. What do you

think? I made no comment to that. I am very admiring of the British

police services, particularly their rank and file who have consistently

voted to not arm themselves, believing that in doing so they

would escalate acts of criminality directed against them. They are to

be very admired in that they choose to limit the weaponry that they

carried and are equipped with. Decisions as to weaponry and non-

lethal weapons - they are up to each individual police force, the

same as in the United States. In my country, some police forces do not

carry Tasers, some will not used rubber bullets or water cannons. I

have not abdicated any type of weapon, nor would I. That is

ultimately up to the British services themselves. They do have

an obligation to protect the members of the force who put

themselves in harm's way and to equip them appropriately to respond

to forces directed against them. We do not expect a police officer who

is confronted with a knife to not have a superior weapon to address

that. That is why, unfortunately for you over the years, more and

more of your police have been equipped with weaponry. I would

like to discuss your record in New York and Los Angeles in a little

bit. Your success in bringing down crime rate has won you a lot of

admirers around the world. I have mentioned the role you will play in

his upcoming conference at the request of David Cameron. It is

reported that David Cameron and those at Number Ten Downing Street

wanted your name in the frame for the Metropolitan Chief Constable -

the top policing job in the UK - running London's police service.

Did they ask you to apply? He did not. I have think there has been a

lot of speculation, all stemming from a comment he made while

addressing the Murdoch scandal. He said that now it might be an

appropriate time to look beyond our Shaw is in terms of expertise in

police issues. I don't think he ever used my name. He and I have

never had a conversation about the issue of leadership of the

Metropolitan Police. Would you have liked the job? I have made it quite

clear that if the position were open and available to outsiders

such as myself that it would certainly be a position I would

certainly entertain applying for. It is the most prestigious police

position in the world of democratic policing because of the duality of

its responsibilities - not only does it have local, city of London

policing responsibilities it has significant responsibility for

national security, particularly I wonder what you made of it, when

it was being discussed that you were a candour. The Home Secretary

seemed to think it was not a good idea and then said any candidate

has to be a British resident. was disappointing in that I would

have liked the opportunity, certainly. I have spent most of my

career in policing. Recent years, in the private sector and enjoying

that but the temptation of London, a city that I love, a country that

I love, a police service that I respect and is respected around the

world, I would be lying, deceiving you if I were to profess that I

would not have been interested. The decision, restricting it to British

citizens, that is her responsibility. There was some

discussion as to whether that was a requirement that it be a British

citizen. It was never clarified in any of the news accounts eyesore.

In terms of the decision... seems it takes an enormous amount

of self confidence to think you could come into the city and learn

the culture, the political environment. Clearly you are not

short of that self-confidence. not short of self-confidence at all.

Coming in to New York from Boston, to Los Angeles from New York -

three very different cities, a set of issues, departments. The idea of

a challenge is something I respond to, I think I have responded to

well. If I may interrupt... I know you still observe things closely.

It strikes me that right now there is a challenge facing the British

police force, England and Wales particularly - 20% cuts in funding

for the police. 16,000 police officers will lose their jobs.

Surveys suggest that 86% of the police think it will have a

damaging effect on levels of crime. From your experience in big city

policing in the United States, if you cut the numbers you have a

problem, don't you? You have a problem. We are experiencing that

in the United States. Yesterday kind in New Jersey they are going

to lay off one-third of the police department, they said. In the city

of New York the police force has been cut by 7,000 police officers

in the last seven, eight years. In the city I just left two years ago,

Los Angeles - we were able to increase the police force from

9, 9,000, as a result of cuts and budget assessment it is

down another 10%. In 2002 there was a larger force and crime rate.

There are fewer police officers on the street now because they are

taking time off rather than overtime. The issues you are about

to face in many instances are being phased in the United States. We are

still benefiting from the residual impact of all that was led in the

1990s and the investment that was made in the 1990s. We will wait to

see if the cuts to have an impact. The country is much safer than the

1990s and in your country, if the cuts do occur - and cuts are always

regrettable - you're going to have to face up to it. Faced a crisis

and the challenges. It is not just about cuts. The focus is on the

government's determination to bring in elected commissioners in

districts. We have not had, in England and Wales in the policing

system before. You were appointed to the top job in New York by Rudy

Giuliani. You worked well and then he fell out and after a couple of

years you walk away from New York City. This is what Rudy Giuliani

said - he was good at public relations but I had to supply the

substance. Three-quarters of the ideas where ideas I gave to him.

Isn't it a problem that the politicians think they can do the

certainly had our differences. Where the ideas that -- came from.

The bulk of the ideas, were caused the men and women of the New York

City police. We have 17,000 police departments in this country. You

have between 40,050 1,000 in the country. -- 40,000 and 50,000.

You're elected government has decided to move in another

direction where the leadership is more politically and to -- more

responsible to politics and the community. There will be issues,

certainly. At the same time, it is a direction that has been clearly

laid out. It is the intent of your government, if I understand it, to

implement this over the next year or two. It has worked for us in the

United States. If it will work in your country, that remains to be

seen. Those that put them into office, the voters, feel they want

a change going forward as I understand it. I just wanted for a

moment to think about your achievement in New York, Los

Angeles. You brought a crime down - - brought crime levels down

dramatically. You cleaned up those cities. Used a means which was a

mix of statistical analysis to do some preventative policing. You

made sure there were a lot of guys on the streets to ensure that there

was no sense of impunity on the streets. I have looked at some

recent research that says you are successful. There is evidence in

New York that police are under pressure to meet their targets,

sometimes by finessing the figures. Are you worried about that?

that at all. When we began to accept responsibility for crime,

many of our political and economic leaders had felt that the causes of

crimes - racism, poverty, demographics, the economy - those

are influences but not the causes. The causes of crime are individual

and group behaviour. Or in a moment of passion, people are in that

situation. Police in a democracy control behaviour. We have to do it

lawfully, we cannot break the law to enforce it. We have to do with

consistently, we have to police evenly across the board - poor and

rich neighbourhoods. We can be held accountable for crime going up and

down. The system we used in New York was intended to gather

information, effective tactic is and what would work and lastly,

continually see if the crime is going back. If I may interrupt, a

criminology professor used to be a New York cop. His research, he says,

shows that people in the Era that you introduced feel enormous

pressure to downgrade crimes. He is basically saying that police fear

the targets more than they fear or doing their job properly. He is

entitled to his opinion. It is a subject of great debate, on going

in New York. Some of the concerns in your government - the targets

that governments have imposed on policing and directions, bullies

are spending more time dealing with paperwork than events on the street.

-- police are spending. I am happy to have people debate it. The

system works and I am very comfortable that people understand

what the aims are, that they share what they're doing to meet them and

when they are not meeting them so we can learn from the success and

failure. In the city I live and the City I just left, Los Angeles, they

are much safer. Effective policing, I think, I have done a pretty good

job in my career. A lot of what I implemented in the United States I

learnt from my British colleagues. Bill Bratton... I am a sorry to

interrupt but we have to ended there. Thank you so much for

Hello. Wednesday will be quite blustery. Further south, not all

sunshine. The day is summarised across the north as one of blustery

showers. It could be quite a windy day. The weather front is coming

through and it will be a heavy burst of rain. In the south, the

weather will move away from the coast. It could be into the

afternoon before we see the rain stops. Things will brighten up

quite nicely. We get some regional perspective. Dry across the

Midlands, clouds thickening ahead of the weather front. Sharp

downpours but behind that, sunshine for the central, southern and

eastern parts of Scotland for Northern Ireland, a disappointing

start. Brighter skies moving in on -- in the afternoons. There will be

one or two showers across the west, parts of the south-west as well but

predominantly dry. After the disappointing start across the

south-east and East Anglia, things will improve. Into the evening and

the first part of the night the band of weather will move into the

North Sea. Relatively clear skies. No chance of mist and fog. Quite a

number of isobars pushing away any prospects of mist and fog overnight.

They were the fund in the Atlantic, trying to move into Scotland and

Northern Ireland, certainly in the west. Elsewhere quite a decent day.