Savage attack on WPC
Discussion
Red 4 said:
Your post about officers being single-crewed depending on the circumstances is just one example of your alternate universe - the point is that officers do not know who or what they will come up against.
Go around in squads of six, then. Or eight. Or ten. It's the only way to be safe.Rovinghawk said:
Red 4 said:
Your post about officers being single-crewed depending on the circumstances is just one example of your alternate universe - the point is that officers do not know who or what they will come up against.
Go around in squads of six, then. Or eight. Or ten. It's the only way to be safe.Red 4 said:
carinaman said:
So no officers that post on PH have ever arrived for a call out and thought 'This seems a bit excessive'?
What methods are there for not seeming or feeling like a spare part on such call outs?
Simple ... leave.What methods are there for not seeming or feeling like a spare part on such call outs?
That stands on its own regardless of any political implication or point to be made.
For me the answer is a simple one; take care of officer risk before public risk.
Red 4 said:
In case you've forgotten this thread is about cuts and officer numbers.
I've just read most of this thread and would like to add my bit.Firstly, I'm glad the WPC is ok.
About 6/7 years ago I went to an OAP's house to mend his mobility scooter, I couldn't get an answer, spoke to the neighbours etc. I went to local police station, Spalding, Lincolnshire, and was told that they only has two police on duty and they were both at at a road accident on the A16.
So even that long ago police numbers were not as good as they should be.
Six months ago (I now have a different job) I went to collect a car from Lincolnshire Police HQ.
From the outside it is a real eyesore of a building but the reception area is very modern, auto doors, wide screen TV etc.
The car (top spec X5) was on loan/demo from BMW to a civilian and she'd had it a week.
I collected the car from the onsite garage. It was parked outside with, I guess, about 100 other vehicles, some damaged and some just parked.
In the garage there were at least 6 motorbikes (all appeared to be in perfect working order) and the four staff were just sat about doing nothing/drinking tea.
My point is that for years there hasn't been not enough 'front line police'- it's not a new thing, and the police has enough money (just like the NHS) it is just spent in the wrong way.
La Liga said:
Red 4 said:
carinaman said:
So no officers that post on PH have ever arrived for a call out and thought 'This seems a bit excessive'?
What methods are there for not seeming or feeling like a spare part on such call outs?
Simple ... leave.What methods are there for not seeming or feeling like a spare part on such call outs?
That stands on its own regardless of any political implication or point to be made.
For me the answer is a simple one; take care of officer risk before public risk.
If he was in most of the marked cars I've been in, the window would not have been open and he'd not have been able to open it from inside.
I can appreciate that the presence of another officer may have meant that that chap wouldn't have tried it.
I know a slightly built female officer that's not overly keen on single crewing that's said they'd be prepared to buy their own BWV.
I'm not sure about the officer risk angle given she lowered her head down, placed herself in a place of danger and the way officer safety is used to push the take up of tasers. The way officer safety is used to push for tasers isn't political?
brenflys777 said:
Your comments about benchmarking wages etc and others about the Police always asking for more money make it sound as though this is about the individual financial benefits of being employed by the Police. I don't think it is. Financially an officer on an understaffed team will probably pick up more overtime, in the short term they might be better off, but the risk to life and limb goes up when you lack appropriate backup.
Got some stats re cost & greater number of police attacks etc?carinaman said:
The officer did seem to lower her face down to the open window before she got hit.
I'm reminded that most of the marked cars I've been in have had the rear interior door handles and window winders disabled. One benefit of that would not being able to hit or grab another, be it a member of the public or an officer of the law through an open window.
Hindsight etc.
If that call out was double crewed a colleague could have suggested not to leave her head like that beside an open window.
'Assess threats and develop a working strategy....
'Identify options and contingencies....
Just how many police cars have you been in?I'm reminded that most of the marked cars I've been in have had the rear interior door handles and window winders disabled. One benefit of that would not being able to hit or grab another, be it a member of the public or an officer of the law through an open window.
Hindsight etc.
If that call out was double crewed a colleague could have suggested not to leave her head like that beside an open window.
'Assess threats and develop a working strategy....
'Identify options and contingencies....
Edited by carinaman on Monday 23 February 23:39
Snozzwangler said:
brenflys777 said:
Your comments about benchmarking wages etc and others about the Police always asking for more money make it sound as though this is about the individual financial benefits of being employed by the Police. I don't think it is. Financially an officer on an understaffed team will probably pick up more overtime, in the short term they might be better off, but the risk to life and limb goes up when you lack appropriate backup.
Got some stats re cost & greater number of police attacks etc?- financially an officer on an understaffed team will probably pick up more overtime, in the short term they might be better off,
I've said probably because I can't be certain it applies to all situations, but every place I've worked has had more overtime when understaffed through either design or absence. There is no individual financial benefit to officers in fighting police cuts, their pay awards are a separate function.
- but the risk to life and limb goes up when you lack appropriate backup.
Statistics aren't needed for this statement either. It's a long time ago now but I've been single crewed and I've been double crewed, if you have an other officer with you the chances of being rendered incapable before a backup call is made reduces dramatically. On my shift we had three officers in the two years I was in who were knocked out ( one by a bottle to the back of the head, one by a flight of stairs and one by a car ) and unconscious, but their partner was able to get assistance. Purely because of budget cuts the number of Police dogs is being reduced, these land sharks also provide appropriate backup and in my experience allow offenders to be caught with less risk to officers and less damage to the offender.
The bald statistics won't tell you the full story. 17,000 fewer officers means there should be fewer assaults on them... but even if you use assaults per officer, if they've gone up it doesn't prove it was because of the manning levels, and if it's gone down it might be because officers aren't putting themselves in as dangerous a position because they lack back up. It doesn't need statistics to be obvious that a single crewed officer is at greater risk than double crewed.
Your position amounts to "We shouldn't waste time looking at facts and figures because interpreting them is too difficult. Instead we should invest more on gut feeling and personal logic". It is this approach that leads to inefficiency and misplaced anger when cuts are implemented.
I am sure mistakes will have been made over the past 5 years, where cuts have been over-done or without proper consideration at to the consequences (mental health provision and the ambulance service spring to mind). What ought not be done is judging the validity of criticism based upon how loud the 'victims' of the cuts squeal.
Society changes, the financial outlook changes, our expectations change. It is illogical to say we should not change our public services to reflect society and the resources available.
I am sure mistakes will have been made over the past 5 years, where cuts have been over-done or without proper consideration at to the consequences (mental health provision and the ambulance service spring to mind). What ought not be done is judging the validity of criticism based upon how loud the 'victims' of the cuts squeal.
Society changes, the financial outlook changes, our expectations change. It is illogical to say we should not change our public services to reflect society and the resources available.
allergictocheese said:
Your position amounts to "We shouldn't waste time looking at facts and figures because interpreting them is too difficult. Instead we should invest more on gut feeling and personal logic". It is this approach that leads to inefficiency and misplaced anger when cuts are implemented.
I am sure mistakes will have been made over the past 5 years, where cuts have been over-done or without proper consideration at to the consequences (mental health provision and the ambulance service spring to mind). What ought not be done is judging the validity of criticism based upon how loud the 'victims' of the cuts squeal.
Society changes, the financial outlook changes, our expectations change. It is illogical to say we should not change our public services to reflect society and the resources available.
No. I think your position amounts to ignoring the evidence of Police officers who do the job and are trying to explain the practical effects of further cuts (with no personal financial benefit) , and assuming the cuts will actually target waste rather than necessary resources.I am sure mistakes will have been made over the past 5 years, where cuts have been over-done or without proper consideration at to the consequences (mental health provision and the ambulance service spring to mind). What ought not be done is judging the validity of criticism based upon how loud the 'victims' of the cuts squeal.
Society changes, the financial outlook changes, our expectations change. It is illogical to say we should not change our public services to reflect society and the resources available.
This effort by the Police to show that cuts have consequences, is entirely in keeping with the sentiments of your last paragraph. Expectations of what the Police can achieve and what the effects of the cuts will result in need to be revised.
brenflys777 said:
No. I think your position amounts to ignoring the evidence of Police officers who do the job and are trying to explain the practical effects of further cuts (with no personal financial benefit) , and assuming the cuts will actually target waste rather than necessary resources.
This effort by the Police to show that cuts have consequences, is entirely in keeping with the sentiments of your last paragraph. Expectations of what the Police can achieve and what the effects of the cuts will result in need to be revised.
Zebras have killed Cameron and taken over government...This effort by the Police to show that cuts have consequences, is entirely in keeping with the sentiments of your last paragraph. Expectations of what the Police can achieve and what the effects of the cuts will result in need to be revised.
Within minutes they will have the ability to access TRIDENT...
We're doomed!!!!
Rovinghawk said:
brenflys777 said:
No. I think your position amounts to ignoring the evidence of Police officers
But it isn't evidence, it's opinion. You've actually refused to show evidence (statistics) because it doesn't suit your case.I posted some of the facts earlier:
There are fewer officers. They are still covering the same or larger populations and expected to provide the same level of service. The officers who are doing the job are able to offer more than an opinion, they can back up that opinion with evidence of day to day problems due to reduced resources. More single crewing increases the risk to officers and can reduce the service provided to the public. The Police are trying to protect their service and I think they have a responsibility to make the public aware that the current cuts have consequences. If the public genuinely think the Police are over resourced and that the correct priorities include foreign aid over Police budgets then fair enough, but the time has come for that debate.
Baryonyx said:
Just how many police cars have you been in?
Quite a few. I think I'd rather be in the back of a Transit than in the back of a vanilla marked car with blue lights and high vis. stickers and disabled interior door handles and window winders. Being in the back of a car unable to open the door or wind down the window could compare to being cuffed. Both are dis-empowering. Being in the back of a Transit is less claustrophobic.
Rovinghawk said:
Snozzwangler said:
Rovinghawk said:
But it isn't evidence, it's opinion. You've actually refused to show evidence (statistics) because it doesn't suit your case.
But think of the impending zebra army!!!I call.... Fight!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff