www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17242956
Don't know the details in depth but surely can't be a great precedent - once up and running it's just a matter of pushing increasing funding into the private arena.
And I'm not a pinko, honest!
|
Not such a precedent.
I know a couple of retired Durham Police detectives who have gone back as civilian investigators.
They can't arrest anyone, but since that's only a tiny proportion of the detecting process, the lack of a warrant card isn't a handicap.
|
>surely can't be a great precedent - once up and running it's just a matter of pushing
>increasing funding into the private arena.
Why "surely"?
And what's the difference between this and Blunkett's Bobbies, other than the logo on the payslips and the pension liabilities?
|
It's a con - the justification appears to be the 20% cuts in police funding. PFI, which is what it is, will cost more in the end.
But it will provide quango jobs or profit opportunities for the cronies and, later, jobs for the civil servants and politicians who are the architects.
Meanwhile, wary as I am of target-driven police officers, I fear much more the prospect of being at the mercy of minimum wage security guard types which is where the front line jobs will eventually go while the board level backscratchers are trousering lotsof public money. And can you imagine how much money they they pour away on systems that won't work?
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 3 Mar 12 at 20:59
|
|
Did much the same with some border security work - obviously works well there and great value at minimum wage, so it will happen and will be deemed a great success.
|
>> Did much the same with some border security work - obviously works well there
I assume you are being satirical?
|
|
With a touch of sarcasm
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 3 Mar 12 at 21:06
|
Despite a handful of high-profile gaffes, the privatisation of prisoner escorts works well.
Hundreds of prisoners are shunted from prison to court and back every day without incident.
I don't know the financial implications, but the private companies are doing the job competently.
|
Thin end of the wedge.
I can imagine a time in the future when the "Aviva" police officer won't investigate your robbery because you were not insured with them.
Or pressure placed on the govt to imprison speeders because it drives up insurance premiums and the company's prisons are a bit quiet at the moment.
|
>I can imagine a time in the future when the "Aviva" police officer won't investigate your robbery..
Try calling plod now and telling them that your car or garden shed has been broken into (cf. WP's post in another thread).
The fact is that there are some functions within the public sector that could be done much better and cheaper by private companies.
Put my employer in charge of MP's expense claims and I'll guarantee an immediate saving of 50%.
|
>> I can imagine a time in the future when the "Aviva" police officer won't investigate
>> your robbery because you were not insured with them.
......which or course was how the original fire insurance companies started!
You subscribed: had a company plaque on your wall and in the event of a fire the fire-fighters (eventually) rolled up!
|
>> >> Did much the same with some border security work - obviously works well there
>>
>> I assume you are being satirical?
>>
Well done.
|
|
It's difficult to convey sarcasm in a post MD - it was satire/sarcasm.
|
...It's difficult to convey sarcasm in a post...
Might be for you.
I find it even easier to convey offence.
|
>But it will provide quango jobs or profit opportunities for the cronies and, later, jobs
>for the civil servants and politicians who are the architects.
The solution to our incestuous pit of public sector employment is to exclude private companies? Go figure.
|
|
One of the forces involved, Surrey, is mine. They are useless with a capital U and S. The private sector really cant do any worse in their case.
|
Private investigation services are the main area that I guess they are going to try and privatise.
I can imagine the following scenarios getting to the papers one day:
Own firm asked to investigate their MD or major shareholder - that's going to be thorough.
Firm asked to investigate a politician whose party is responsible for signing the next contract again, not as independent as one my hope!
|
A worrying road to travel down.
I don't want to see private security police on our streets, resembling a paramilitary funeral escort complete with regulation shaved heads, if those who live in walled communities want them thats their business, those paying for it have some say.
Who's going to regulate them and who's going to curb them when a juicy boardroom job might be in the offing to top up the golden senior civil or MP's untouchable pension.
|
>> One of the forces involved, Surrey, is mine. They are useless with a capital U
>> and S. The private sector really cant do any worse in their case.
But don't they have to do better?
That's not going to happen because the problem is management. Inserting a private contractor into the equation just gives them another alibi.
|
|
Zero, it would be helpful if you explained that uselessness you describe displayed by Surrey, in the context of the overall demand placed upon them and the budget available to meet that demand. And therein lies the problem with privatising any aspect of the overall policing service. There will be a limited budget for an overall demand. How well that demand is met/serviced will be the measure of success. However, despite my representations it will always be easier to satisy the contracted out service because it will be clearly defined in the contract. General policing isn't so defined. The next question for me is: will the contracted-out service be fully handled by the contractor? I'll give you a very simple example: A previous contributor suggested that prisoner movements to/from court is working well with the existing contractor. Well, until the prisoner is too violent, medically unwell, or after 0930 in the morning, or going to a different court etc etc.
|
|
or wants to escape on his way to Court - is it in the contract that route/timing information is shared with co-conspirators ?
|
...Well, until the prisoner is too violent, medically unwell, or after 0930 in the morning, or going to a different court etc etc...
Such things happen rarely, and they happened when the Prison Service was responsible for escorts.
The disruption caused was much the same.
If the punter's acting up, it doesn't matter who is escorting him.
The Prison Service still escorts the proper, serious criminals, of which there are very few.
|
|
Iffy, you speak from experience when you say such things happen rarely? With the relevant ongoing experience I strongly disagree. (and it's not just prisoners being moved from prisons, they're moved from police stations daily) You've only covered the violent not the medically unwell, late appearances or change of courts. But the point is made, albeit over your head, that the contractor can use the contract to avoid certain situations. The police can't. I note your failure/unwillingness to reply to the whole of my post. (some evidence around Surrey being useless vs. overall demand/budget?) . Regards.
|
...I note your failure/unwillingness to reply to the whole of my post. (some evidence around Surrey being useless vs. overall demand/budget?) . Regards...
I was talking about prisoner escorts from jail to court, which 99.9 per cent of the time has nothing to do with the police.
Zero posted about Surrey Police.
|
>> The Prison Service still escorts the proper, serious criminals, of which there are very few.
That might explain the two police silver Mercedes prison vans, flanked by three unmarked police cars, all showing blue strobes heading up the North Circular on Tuesday morning at well over the 50mph limit.
I keep seeing new (11 and 61 plate) GeoAmey prison vans plying the motorways, including the other day a wheelchair-access one with an underslung tail-lift. Good contract for Iveco there.
|
|
I have a pal who lives near Frankland high security prison, (and worked there for many years). He says that you can always tell when a cat "A" prisoner is being moved as the police helicopter is in attendance.
|
>> A previous contributor suggested that prisoner movements to/from court is working well with the
>> existing contractor. Well, until the prisoner is too violent, medically unwell, or after 0930 in
>> the morning, or going to a different court etc etc.
>>
..or there's staff sickness so they can't deliver, or a lorry broke down, etc
In other words there's no 'can do' attitude or 'the job must be done'. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.
...and don't forget the police officer directed to attend the residential burglary that night duty couldn't get to (as usual), but then gets given a serious accident to deal with, just as he/she got to the end of the victim's road, would like to provide a better service...but can't, because there isn't enough of them nowadays (because of the vastly increased workloads).
The difference though between the police and a contractor is the urgent stuff gets prioritised and when it really matters it happens. From the public's perspective though they don't understand/agree with those priorities, they just want their own stuff dealt with...and the police are often at fault there for not fully explaining that...they try to keep everyone happy...and fail miserably.
|
Kevin rightly suggests that the public sector feathers its own nest, as all empires do, but I don't think privatisation is right for essential public services.
You can make the debate as comprehensive and complicated as you like, but for me there are two fundamental problems with it that are very difficult to deal with.
1. It's not actually possible fully to privatise essential services - even if you contract out 100%.
That's because, ultimately, it is government who pays and has responsibility for the provision of care, water supplies, policing or whatever. The profit opportunity is given to the cronies, or whoever wants to buy the businesses when they are floated or sold on. They shelter behind limited liability, but the biggest risks never leave the public sector - because the service must be provided, and ultimately taxation will fund it.
2. An effective control model to ensure the right outcomes does not exist. It can just about be done with a fairly simple requirement, like generating or distributing electricity (note that they have been split which helps with this). Something like publicly funded health care or policing is different.
This is not easy (for me) to explain but Westpig shines a light on it in his second paragraph.
There are two basic control models - input and output. Input is where it is made clear to employees what they should do and how they should do it. It works for simple processes. If you work on a production line, fitting axles or whatever,you are told what to do. With the addition of quality checks which can also be precisely defined, you either do it or you don't. The design of the process is effectively all the management that is needed. This explains why industrial processes can become incredibly efficient, and continue to improve.
Output control is used where the process is difficult to prescribe (too many choices need to be made along the way, every day is different) but the result is easily measured. This is typically used in sales. You can't tell a salesman what to say, or exactly how much discount to give on a particular occasion, but you can set targets for sales and/or profit and measure the results. It works. The targets are indirectly dictated by "the market" which promotes competition and ensures that persistently inefficient businesses die. One thing it isn't very good at is looking after every individual customer. We have all been jerked around by car dealers - it's of no consequence to them as long as there is a good supply of other prospects. This is at its worst when the product or service is in short supply and has to be rationed.
Neither of these models works very well for complicated things that have to be managed as a whole and where the desired outputs go beyond profit and are complex, multiple, conflicting and changing from one day to another. You can't tell a policeman exactly what he will do today and how (though that hasn't stopped them trying).
Both health and policing have already suffered greatly in my opinion from the introduction of "market forces". Read Inspector Gadget to see the nonsense that targets create, this post is too long already.
These complex essential services were never perfect. But they had evolved a system of control that to some extent avoided the pitfalls of the market driven models. Hospitals were once run by senior doctors and nurses, with administrative support (much less, I think, than there is now). Clinical decisions took priority (mostly). They still had to manage to budgets and prioritise (frankly, ration) but the people who ran these organisations could direct resources on the basis of need, and for want of a better description, "doing the right thing". They were governed by principles, ethics, tradition, and a sense of what was wanted of them. Decision making of the kind, I imagine, that Woodster and Westpig have been used to making every day. How do you enshrine an evolved culture like that in an act of parliament or a regulatory code?
One way round this is to privatise only the simple bits. The private providers will cherry pick anyway, so we might as well do it for them. This doesn't really work - it just creates duplication in management and resources and makes it less efficient for the public sector to provide the complicated bits.
Probably the wrong place for this kind of discourse. There's much more to debate than can be done effectively here.
|
>> Probably the wrong place for this kind of discourse. There's much more to debate than
>> can be done effectively here.
>>
Good post
|
>but I don't think privatisation is right for essential public services.
I don't really care whether a service is provided by a public or private organisation as long as it fulfils the requirements and is value for money. If the public sector can show that they provide a better service for similar outlay then I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the automatic assumption that services will suffer if privatised. The level of waste, incompetence, layers of management and perks enjoyed by the public sector leave plenty of room for profit.
Of course, if I was a cynic, I might suggest that this is the real aim of the Govt. To cut the state payroll to private sector levels a little bit at a time.
|
>> Zero, it would be helpful if you explained that uselessness you describe displayed by Surrey,
All I can say is that they have one of the Highest precepts, and one of the lowest clean-up rates. The "milly dowler" case is a shining example of their major crime ineptitude. Not to mention the "Guildford pub bombings"
>> in the context of the overall demand placed upon them
Low, they have one of the lowest crime areas to cover
and the budget available to
>> meet that demand.
One of the highest. (if you exclude the metropolitan forces)
Here is an example of the thinking behind Surrey police brains.
We have had a large and sudden increase in theft from vehicles, usually late at night.
The source is easy to guess, The nearby social housing estates, the nearby travellers sites, and the south London "drive in, drive out" gangs.
So being a bright and shiny intelligent copper, you are suddenly given a large resource in men and vehicles for half a day to have a crack at it. Where and how would you deploy it?
Would you, for example, use it to block off, stop and filter cars going in and out of the shopping area on Saturday morning?
I can see who thought that operation up, the PR department. Lets be seen to be doing something. Surrey police are great at PR and spend considerable time money and effort at it, but crap at actually policing.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 4 Mar 12 at 11:13
|
>>I can see who thought that operation up, the PR department.
Indeed. Very much an aspect of 'marketisation' that is already present. We've already had the counter productive targets - guess what happens when there's a target for resolving ASB? The ones you can't resolve get classified as something else.
With more private sector involvement you'll get more PR, not less.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 4 Mar 12 at 11:18
|
|
Don't imagine it'll get any better with the much vaunted Policing Commissioners - mind you John Prescott would be entertaining.
|
>> One of the forces involved, Surrey, is mine. They are useless with a capital U and S. The private sector really cant do any worse in their case. >>
Probably true for most other regions too.
|
The Police are facing a 20% funding cut.
The Police wages/pensions/operations bill is unsustainable.
Private outsourcing is a means to cutting costs.
Private does not necessarily mean better and/or cheaper, nor does it necessarily mean worse and/or expensive.
But in this case, the primary purpose of outsourcing is to cut costs, and that may mean equal or lower standards of performance. It could on the other hand in some areas actually mean better standards at a lower cost. We won't know until the experiment gets under-way and the results are in.
The fact remains that Britain cannot afford any longer to carry on with its expensive top-world-class public services.
We will have to get used to lower spending, and with it lower standards, in many areas whether we like it or not.
|
>>We will have to get used to lower spending, and with it lower standards, in many areas whether we like it or not
No reason that that has to be the case. Economic growth and productivity improvements mean wealth generation is much higher now than in say the 60s and 70s.
Waste is the problem. "Projects" and quick fixes just burn money on a colossal scale. Bloke on the wireless smugly saying that the Olympics should come in below the budget of £9.6 BILLION (no mention that the original budget was £2.4bn). That's over £400 for every household, though many households won't of course pay a bean, people paying their own way will be the ones that fund it.
Quick fixes are what have got us to where we are in health and policing. Marketisation in health solved some problems and created others. Throwing money at those problems hasn't worked, trusts found themselves with money they struggled to spend because it was directed to the wrong needs. Now we have the worst kind of quick fix of all, a great reorganisation with no pilot which is (a) a huge gamble, and (b) has unpredictable costs and consequences.
I also think the police service is carp now, but I don't blame the police. My neighbour had his Land Rover stolen from outside his house a few weeks ago. The police wouldn't even turn out, he was asked if he'd spoken to his neighbours to see if they had seen/heard anything (isn't that the police's job?) and shortly afterwards he received a call to say the case had been closed. Yet if Gadget is to be believed, the police have to turn out for kids throwing snowballs because Theresa May has committed to tackle anti-social behaviour. Never mind that their are no sanctions for the snowballers anyway.
The government (of any colour) would do better to give health back to the professionals and leave policing to the police, and restrict itself to ensuring that corruption and wrongdoing are dealt with.
|
>>The government (of any colour) would do better to give health back to the professionals
Maybe, but I'm not convinced "giving control to GPs" is necessarily in the patient's best interest.
Face-to-face in a consultation the patient is the most important person in the room.
When determining what services to provide/ration/stop the patient can easily become an annoying nuisance responsible for difficulties balancing the budget.
IMHO this = conflict of interests.
|
>>The government (of any colour) would do better to give health back to the professionals
>> and leave policing to the police, and restrict itself to ensuring that corruption and wrongdoing
>> are dealt with.
>>
Another 'spot on' post.
|
>> >>The government (of any colour) would do better to give health back to the professionals
>> >> and leave policing to the police, and restrict itself to ensuring that corruption and
>> wrongdoing
>> >> are dealt with.
>> >>
>> Another 'spot on' post.
>>
In other words, let the Government (i.e. taxpayer) stop funding these "professions", and let these professions go private and seek/compete to sell their services direct to the public to pay for their own salaries and pensions.
Can't disagree with that. It may even provide some retired police and doctors an opportunity to sell their expertise and make a fortune in the private sector as private professionals.
;-)
|
|
I'll drink to that. You'd soon have something to say when no-one in your area was paying and real lawlessness descended. I'd be there taking from the highest bidder!
|
>You'd soon have something to say when no-one in your area was paying and real lawlessness descended.
>I'd be there taking from the highest bidder!
Don't put down your glass Woodster, you'd be wasting your time.
Residents know who the wrong-uns are in their own area. Community justice would step in.
|
|
Why yes, of course, silly me. None of them travel anywhere by car. The mere concept of leaving one area to commit crime in the rich pickings of another is, well, frankly ludicrous.
|
>> Why yes, of course, silly me. None of them travel anywhere by car. The mere
>> concept of leaving one area to commit crime in the rich pickings of another is,
>> well, frankly ludicrous.
>>
The average paedophile looks so obvious doesn't he...stood outside that school in their long mac and Benny Hill glasses.
|
|
Burglars with stripy shirts and 'swag' bags...
|
>Why yes, of course, silly me. None of them travel anywhere by car.
And your current answer to that is to install yet more ANPR and CCTV then review footage, after the fact, when the damage has already been done? Woodster not needed or required thanks.
Westpig said:
>The average paedophile looks so obvious doesn't he...
And how many of them have been identified by frontline troops? The "average" paedophile (Is there such a thing?) is identified online. I'd wager that Google's profiling could identify more of them than any copper pretending to be a minor in some chat room.
Good emotional distraction though.
Woodster said:
>Burglars with stripy shirts and 'swag' bags...
They're about as common as beat cops. Woodster not required.
My own personal impression of plod is that they've lost their way badly. What was once a force that had earned and enjoyed the respect of Joe Public is now a complete shambles, riddled with fast-track PC apologists who haven't worked their way through the ranks and don't understand what is important to the people they are supposed to serve.
And don't ask me what I think of the CPS.
|
>> My own personal impression of plod is that they've lost their way badly. >>
Most plod have been reduced to automatons, incapable of using common sense and ruled to the letter by "extra-judicial guidelines" issued by the union known as ACPO.
My impression is that less than 10% of plod qualify and work as real police that Joe Public would expect and respect. The rest are no better than PCSOs.
|
>>> Residents know who the wrong-uns are in their own area. Community justice would step in
ooooo - like Charles Bronson in Death Wish!
Back in the real world, however, community justice usually means scumbags targeting people they have a grudge against, or who have been slighted by (real or imagined) and dishing out some extra-judicial violence or harassment.
At the worst end of the spectrum it is organised criminals running 'protection' rackets, or maintaining an environment of fear so they can keep sellling drugs in their communities.
See also "Big Mags Haney" and "Punishment Beatings in Northern Ireland".
|
>ooooo - like Charles Bronson in Death Wish!
FFS. No Lygonos. It is like the non-pinko that you are accepting the fact that families and communities have a responsibility for demonstrating what is, and is not, acceptable behaviour.
Like potty training your kids, it is not something that you should expect the state to do for you.
>Back in the real world, however..
If you want a world like this, good luck. I'll fight you every inch of the way.
|
>>Like potty training your kids, it is not something that you should expect the state to do for you.
Obviously - but are you suggesting neighbours should be responsible for potty-training other peoples' kids?
And if not, and the parents are incapable or unwilling, then who?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 4 Mar 12 at 23:47
|
>Obviously - but are you suggesting neighbours should be responsible for potty-training
>other peoples' kids?
>And if not, and the parents are incapable or unwilling, then who?
Let's turn this 180. If the parents are "incapable or unwilling" of potty training their kids, who do you think should pick up the tab?
|
Unfortunately us.
Got any better ideas that would actually work in practice?
|
inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/
A perspective from one who knows. I reckon it will all go horribly wrong, and probably very quickly.
|
>Unfortunately us.
>Got any better ideas that would actually work in practice?
Yes, but you're not going to like it. It starts with:
"Sack all the hang-wringing apologists who are happy to sit on their 'arrisses and do nothing about the situation."
|
>>"Sack all the hang-wringing apologists who are happy to sit on their 'arrisses and do nothing about the situation."
Ok, so apart from reactionary tabloid headlines, what do you suggest?
|
>Ok, so apart from reactionary tabloid headlines, what do you suggest?
Sack all the hang-wringing apologists who are happy to sit on their 'arrisses and do nothing about the situation.
|
I guess I can replace 'tabloid' with 'Daily Star'
Who exactly is to be sacked?
One assumes you are referring to some who are currently employed in law enforcement.
|
>I guess I can replace 'tabloid' with 'Daily Star'
I'm guessing that's supposed to be some sort of witty insult. Not really one of your strong points is it?
But, pray tell, from which pinnacle of journalistic excellence do you look down upon the rest of us?
>Who exactly is to be sacked?
>One assumes you are referring to some who are currently employed in law enforcement.
You might want to spend a bit of time improving your thread reading ability too. After I posted this "Like potty training your kids, it is not something that you should expect the state to do for you.", you decided to begin discussing state sponsored potty training. What the heck that has to do with law enforcement is completely beyond me.
|
Avoid answering my questions if you like.
Reflecting your guff back to you has obviously helped you see that it is indeed guff.
|
>Avoid answering my questions if you like.
>Reflecting your guff back to you has obviously helped you see that it is indeed guff.
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Potty training kids is not the state's responsibility and I would sack any public sector employee who thinks that it should be. That includes you.
|
>> Potty training kids is not the state's responsibility and I would sack any public sector
>> employee who thinks that it should be. That includes you.
>>
OK so we've sacked some public sector employees.
But we still haven't sorted who, in default of (a handful of lacking) parents, might potty train the unfortunate kids.
|
|
The Police.....in the real world, when parents fail, the school fail, and Social Services fail it's the cops that pick up the pieces, in a million different ways, on a million different streets in a million different situations.....not right that.
|
|
Primary teachers report kids turning up still in nappies at 4. But TBH wee accidents were pretty common when I was at primary in 64/5. One kid who could even drop a poo out of his pants and on to the floor when he thought nobody was looking.
|
>> The Police.....in the real world, when parents fail, the school fail, and Social Services fail
>> it's the cops that pick up the pieces, in a million different ways, on a
>> million different streets in a million different situations.....not right that.
>>
You are not wrong.
|
>>Potty training kids is not the state's responsibility
Noone said it was, I was simply using your metaphor. I presumed you were comparing potty-training with the parents' responsibilities not to bring up antisocial children.
You said, and then repeated, "Sack all the hang-wringing apologists who are happy to sit on their 'arrisses and do nothing about the situation."
This suggests that the "hang-wringing apologists" are employed to deal with the "situation", hence being in a position they can be "sacked" from.
That appears to be a statement regarding those in law enforcement.
Come on then - give us some substance - soundbites are for politicians, I'd love a few policies or suggestions how to improve policing and social order, without resorting to some form of vigilante-ism ("Residents know who the wrong-uns are in their own area. Community justice would step in").
I'm not sure from the context whether you think that's a viable alternative to state-based policing, or if you are warning what may happen if we let the standard of policing fall too far.
Or if you see "Community justice" in a more formal role, such as local small-scale forces/security, rather than "mob justice" which tends to rise from a degree of criminality in its own right.
Despite the sarcasm, I would love some deeper input regarding this as it's a possible outcome in the future if Policing become a more remote/cheaper process than it is at present.
....and I'm not a public sector employee, I'm an independent contractor who happens to provide services to the NHS ;-)
|
>> if Policing become a more remote/cheaper process than it is at present. >>
There is no "if" about it, as the 20% cuts are real and happening now.
>> I'm not a public sector employee, I'm an independent contractor who happens to provide services to the NHS ;-) >>
:-0
In other words, fleecing the taxpayer twice over:
www.independent.co.uk/money/tax/6989032.html
|
>Noone said it was,
Your memory is failing. Don't you read your own posts?
">>>And if not, and the parents are incapable or unwilling, then who?
>>Let's turn this 180. If the parents are "incapable or unwilling" of potty training their
>>kids, who do you think should pick up the tab?
>Unfortunately us."
>Come on then - give us some substance..I'd love a few policies or suggestions how to
>improve policing and social order,
Are we back to policing now that you've given up on potty training?
>I'm not sure from the context whether you think that's a viable alternative to state-based
>policing, or if you are warning what may happen if we let the standard of policing fall too
>far.
When communities lose faith in the bodies they rightfully expect to maintain law and order they will take matters into their own hands.
>..and I'm not a public sector employee,
Still paid by the taxpayer and still sacked pinko :-
|
My mistake Kevin - I was crediting you with perhaps some insight and some subtlety in your use of English but perhaps opposable thumbs is a pre-requisite for using metaphors.
Fortunately you have neither the position or intellect to consider, create or implement social changes, so I'll let you return to your reactionary drivel with your EDL mates.
|
>I was crediting you with perhaps some insight and some subtlety in your use of English but
>perhaps opposable thumbs is a pre-requisite for using metaphors.
No, only personal insults it appears.
>Fortunately you have neither the position or intellect to consider, create or implement
>social changes, so I'll let you return to your reactionary drivel with your EDL mates.
That is genuinely out-of-order!
Last edited by: Kevin on Tue 6 Mar 12 at 23:37
|
|
Can we draw a line under this please ?
|
...Can we draw a line under this please ?...
______________________________________________________________________
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 7 Mar 12 at 10:12
|
>> ...Can we draw a line under this please ?...
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
That won't do. It should be a thin blue line. ;-)
|
>> That won't do. It should be a thin blue line. ;-)
_________________________________________________________________
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 7 Mar 12 at 12:58
|
>> >> That won't do. It should be a thin blue line. ;-)
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
That's the power of the wand.
Now, can you make it an even thinner blue line in keeping with the subject?
|
>Can we draw a line under this please ?
Yes.
When debate descends into offensive and unfounded accusations of sympathy towards fascist organisations there's nothing more to be said.
|
>> That is genuinely out-of-order! >>
Unbecoming a man of his profession. Report him to his union. ;-)
|
>> >Why yes, of course, silly me. None of them travel anywhere by car.
>>
>> And your current answer to that is to install yet more ANPR and CCTV then
>> review footage, after the fact, when the damage has already been done? Woodster not needed
>> or required thanks.
What IS needed is more patrolling police oficers, backed up by decent Intel and not so pushed with general calls that they cannot concentrate on anything else. A good cop can spot a 'bad un' very easily. You can often spot a dodgy outfit by the car itself, from a distance, it isn't difficult when you're experienced. ANPR helps...but not if there are not people available to act on the info.
>>
>> >The average paedophile looks so obvious doesn't he...
>>
>> And how many of them have been identified by frontline troops? The "average" paedophile (Is
>> there such a thing?) is identified online.
There will be computer crime units who trap paedophiles...but...they are few and far between and are well under staffed. This is how it goes:
999 call.
Lady: "There's a man in the park. I think he might me watching the kids at the primary school entrance. I've seen him before"
Who gets sent to that? Who gets assigned to that location for the next week, if they dn't find him straight away? Who gets the description circulated to, for a 10 mile radius?
>>
>> >Burglars with stripy shirts and 'swag' bags...
>>
>> They're about as common as beat cops. Woodster not required.
Who do you think arrests burglars? O.K. some will be found out via a forensic docket and turfed out of their beds at homes by the CID/local crime squad...but many are caught after info from the public, ANPR info on a car etc.. and direct action from uniformed cops or crime squad plain clothed officers.
Again you need feet on the ground. The reason the 'service' is now so dreadful, is there isn't enough people working at the coalface to deal with all the demand. Simple as that.
>> My own personal impression of plod is that they've lost their way badly. What was
>> once a force that had earned and enjoyed the respect of Joe Public is now
>> a complete shambles, riddled with fast-track PC apologists who haven't worked their way through the
>> ranks and don't understand what is important to the people they are supposed to serve.
There's an element of truth in that, only you forgot 'totally obsessed with diversity'.
>> And don't ask me what I think of the CPS.
Yes. They are truly appalling*........*(in general, there is the odd good egg).
>>
|
|
Did some reading on this seems that the Labour Government laid the seed for this silly plan in the Police Reform Act 2002....
|
>What IS needed is more patrolling police oficers,
I agree 100% if you mean more officers out on patrol.
>Lady: "There's a man in the park. I think he might me watching the kids at the primary school entrance.."
And what can you do about it? You can't arrest someone for watching kids even if you're damn sure he's a genuine threat.
>Who do you think arrests burglars?
>Again you need feet on the ground.
Again, I agree 100%.
As a matter of interest. How does the total number of Police staff (force and civilian) per head of population compare with 20 or 30 years ago?
|
>> As a matter of interest. How does the total number of Police staff (force and
>> civilian) per head of population compare with 20 or 30 years ago?
www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
Page 14.
|
>> As a matter of interest. How does the total number of Police staff (force and
>> civilian) per head of population compare with 20 or 30 years ago?
>>
The main problem (based on my past 30 years experience) is as follows:
- the demand from the public has risen enormously...and by that I mean 999 calls and less urgent calls to police control rooms; crime reporting; etc, etc. This could easily be because of increased population levels, but I do not have the figures. I suspect a change in public attitude i.e. being more aware/demanding, has something to do with it as well (not necessarily a criticism either, because I’ve become more demanding of service).
- the change in priorities and improvement in standards in many specific areas. Nowadays there are many, many more units that deal with specific areas of crime e.g. domestic violence units, child protection teams, computer crime units and there are loads more. All of these have merit, I cast no aspersion on any of them...but...they are staff intensive, expensive and that means less officers available to work on the streets, so the streets side of things goes backwards…at a time of ever increasing demand. It’s even worse for traffic related matters and that is a bad thing...because most crooks travel in motor transport, and when they don’t stop for police, most police forces rely on Traffic Officers to be highly trained enough and in the right vehicles, to stop them…only they are being reduced in numbers…drastically.
- civilianisation of police roles. On the surface of it, a good idea, as it's cheaper. In reality, not such a good idea.... because, historically, it takes more civilians to achieve what was once done by police officers..and it usually becomes noticeably more bureaucratic because civilian management gets involved (there never used to be such a thing as civilian management, now it’s an empire).
- setting of detailed and specific targets by politicians, this then encourages the reaching of those targets to the detriment of other areas, particularly when senior police officers have performance related pay. Both are a bad thing.
- PCSOs. For every 10 of them you could have 6 police officers (ish…my figures), why not have the real deal? Why have something that is relatively expensive with such a limited role to perform? Same principle as a Highways Agency Traffic Officer in a high end Land Rover product when you could have a fully trained police traffic officer? Yes the police one is expensive when compared in simple terms, but look at the omni-competent role the police officer can perform. Madness.
- Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Excellent idea…if…you had enough staff to do everything. If you don’t, something ‘gives’…and it does. The top end stuff gets dealt with, the lower end stuff does (with SNT’s) and the medium stuff in the middle goes to rat’s excrement. Lovely.
|
I think a big part of the anti-social/criminality issues is how long it takes for the court side to operate.
If you commit an offence and it will be 12 months or more before any prospect of repercussions for your bad behaviour, I think any deterrent effect will be greatly reduced.
ASBOs don't work - there's no immediate deterrent effect and the majority are breached.
If I was 'the gaffer' I'd suggest:
- speed up the court/judicial procedures especially for violent/antisocial offences - whether that means giving discretion to judges to increase sentences for dragging out cases, or having more courts/judges/magistrates (and consequently more prisons - not cheap but it's better than having scumbags running around due to lack of room for them IMO).
- push the financial punishments/repayment of damages caused by offenders - take a percentage of wages/benefits until paid off - increase the percentage if continuing antisocial behaviour/offending
- continue chasing the 'proceeds of crime' - nothing hurts gangsters more than having their stuff taken.
I know a few policemen/women and they all get very frustrated doing their job only to see the end result of their work being endless days in court and watching it fail to encourage offenders to change their ways.
I've watched people coming out of court, big grins on their faces, stating "I got off - I only got community service" - if that 100 hours had been £1000 fine they'd not be so cocky.
|
|
The "gaffers" have already done that - there are very strict time limits for youth offenders under 18. Only the most serious crimes take longer.
|
Even thinner blue line.... - Iffy
