The Police Act of 1964 provided that every complaint against the police be investigated by the police. The deputy chief constable of each force was to decide whether to bring a charge against an officer under the code of discipline or to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for decision. Within a decade, Parliament determined that the existing system was defective in not providing for independent scrutiny of police investigations of the great majority of complaints which might include breaches of the disciplinary code. In the act of 1976, a Police Complaints Board was grafted to the system, requiring that the deputy chief constable of each force send a report of any complaint investigation to the Board, stating whether disciplinary proceedings had been instituted, and if not, why not. The Board could direct that disciplinary charges be brought. However, the Board was not given the power of investigation. In its first Triennial Report in 1981, the Board suggested that (1) allegations of criminal conduct against an officer be investigated by a special body of officers drawn from the whole service and placed under a lawyer's control, (2) clearer guidance be given on the interpretation of the double-jeopardy rule, and (3) some relief be given to the system of having full investigations and formal reports for minor complaints. In the many inquiries into the adequacy of the complaints system, little attention has been given to the process by which the public is reassured about police behavior. No complaints system can convince the public that the police, with civility and without unnecessary force, are exercising their powers responsibly. Through careful recruitment and thorough training, it is the responsibility of the police to ensure that questionable police behavior in interactions with the public is held to a minimum.