Matching tactics with problem
and purpose
It is essential that the response uses the methods most likely to make
the best impact on the specific problem, or uses the intelligence
available in the best possible way to ensure that the specific dealing
circumstance is disrupted most effectively. This means that the
opportunity may be presented to seize the commodity, the persons and
their assets, but it will not always be possible to tackle all three
at once to maximum effect. The following matrix may help:
|
Intention of operation |
Suitable tactics |
Likely indicator of
achievement |
|
To move the dealing from
its current location |
High profile uniformed
policing;
overt surveillance;
environmental works; door controls (clubs and pubs) |
Dealing moves out of sight
or to new location;
or becomes closed |
|
To deal with a specific
group of people within a dealing hotspot |
As 2 but with CHIS work;
Immigration approaches; police led proactive treatment approach
(Tower style) |
Individuals removed or
deported (Crack) |
|
To undermine a group’s
operations |
Focus on commodity or cash
seizure |
Seizure without substantial
arrests of individuals |
|
To make it harder to
deal in certain commodities |
Focus of efforts on certain
dealers; work to reduce demand through increased treatment |
Seizure of drugs;
deportations (crack) |
Depending on what is required, what capacity is
available and the particular vulnerability of certain dealing
operations a different operational response will be required. The key
point is that it may be possible for a number of people to be, say,
arrested for supply, but will the market have been disrupted? Seizing
a large quantity of the dealers’ cash or key associates may hurt as
much, as will claiming their drugs even without the people to go with
it. The key is the purpose – how can I best disrupt this market? Which
tactic will deliver what I want happen?
|
