University degree required to join the police
Discussion
CarsAreBad2572 said:
Eclassy said:
scamera vans
NOT "scamera vans". "Life-saving vans". People express racist outrage at 120-odd deaths caused by immigrants who don't know any better because of their culture (and who are only doing what they do because of Islamophobia), but then think it's big and clever and fashionable to use immature names to refer to those who are doing us all a favour trying to reduce the THOUSANDS of deaths a year caused by those who absolutely SHOULD know better, because they were BORN here, TEARING about the place.What's worse? 120 deaths or THOUSANDS of deaths? Try going up to the mother of a child who's been MOWN DOWN by a SPEEDING DRIVER and tell her they're "scamera vans". You'll rightly get a SLAP. Whereas I would tell her they were "DEATH-REDUCING VANS" and she would then know I was a better person than YOU. Those who say "SCAMERA VAN" are in fact saying "I HAVE BLOOD ON MY HANDS".
STOP SPEEDING! WHY IS IT SO HARD TO STOP BEING SO SELFISH?!?!??!?
Your use of allcaps doesn't change that.
Red 4 said:
Rovinghawk said:
It's sad to say that the current government probably has greater public trust than the police. You might wish to address that.
Keep dreaming.Public trust in politicians is very low. Public trust in the police is relatively high.
This government intends to decimate the police for its own reasons.
Police numbers in England and Wales are around 120,000.
Police numbers in France (a country with a comparable population) are near 300,000. Most French police are also armed.
Government want to cut police numbers in this England and Wales to 80,000.
Welcome to the real world.
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 15th November 23:43
For clarity. 'evidence' does not include 'the number of police in France' for a number of reasons, not least its geographic size and regional nature of policing.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
But who was voted in at the last general election? Was it not the senior Tory politicians?
How's that relevant? V8 Fettler said:
I wondered if you'd pop up. We've been here before: people will say one thing to a pollster, but when it comes to voting they'll frequently vote for something else. The Tories have made it clear for years that they would continue to cut police budgets, did people vote in the last election to prevent the proposed cuts? No.
The matter was to do with trust and who the public trust more. It had nothing to do with anything else you've written. I'll talk you through it. The first part was RH speculating on who is trusted more:
Rovinghawk said:
It's sad to say that the current government probably has greater public trust than the police. You might wish to address that.
The second part was me presenting indications he was incorrect. La Liga said:
And you've "probably" just made that up because it's what you want to be the case.
Plc vs Gov.
The third part was you mentioning who people voted for and the policies of a specific political party, all of which are irrelevant to the original point about who is trusted more / less. Plc vs Gov.
V8 Fettler said:
I see no intention to fully privatise the police; it would be disastrous if it occurred.
Although it's a lagging indicator, how have crime statistics changed over the last few years of cuts?
Fully is a wooly word.Although it's a lagging indicator, how have crime statistics changed over the last few years of cuts?
By privatising the police I mean giving the authority to arrest and prosecute to private companies. I mean that the public will be able to buy partial policing. I mean that funding of these private police forces will come via many from prosecutions.
I see an intention to do this, although I 100% agree with you that it would be a disaster for the general public in this country.
There can be no stats because the initial cuts are only just starting to come in and the full cuts probably won't come on line until after the next election.
johnfm said:
How many police does evidence suggest we need?
For clarity. 'evidence' does not include 'the number of police in France' for a number of reasons, not least its geographic size and regional nature of policing.
Let's ignore the fact that most other European countries have more police officers per individual, which is evidence they have come to diametrically different conclusions, and look at the demand for police.For clarity. 'evidence' does not include 'the number of police in France' for a number of reasons, not least its geographic size and regional nature of policing.
I'm not sure what you mean by regional policing and why this should require more officers. Further, greater area does not require 2.5 times more officers.
At the moment almost every force fails to respond to calls for immediate and urgent assistance in what the government feels is reasonable time, but that most callers will feel is unreasonable. That's evidence.
My old force used to classify calls into four groups: urgent - 10 mins, immediate - 20 mins, appointment - within n hrs or days depending, no response. It now has seven. Urgent is divided into two, with the lower being 20 mins. Yet they can no longer hit the targets.
How about call takers being told to limit the length of time they spend talking to a caller, that call centres are understaffed. We've seen the tragic results of this already.
How about major crime units, those spreading across two or three counties, being unable to investigate all the crimes in their remit, even when there is a named person and evidence against them? Is that sufficient to show that perhaps we have too few officers? These crimes are either sleeved or sent back to force where they lack the staff to deal so are binned.
How about reducing the charge against suspects in case they go to trial, plea bargaining for cost savings?
How about no police officers attending burglaries unless there's a very good chance of a body? Or only going to burglaries at odd numbered addresses? How about not investigating minor traffic offences? How about not stopping lorries as the work generated takes an officer off the road for extended periods of time? How about police officers being told not to stop cars at night, the implied reason being in case they find someone they are obliged to breath test, and so occupy them for hours?
How about there being insufficient police officers to respond in sufficient numbers to major public order problems? Oh, wait, that was 2011 before even the previous round of cuts started, so I suppose that doesn't count.
How about only one traffic unit on patrol, and normally singled crewed, in one of the largest police forces, and areas, in the country?
The level of policing in other countries is much more relevant than the guesses of someone who knows little about the problems the police are currently experiencing, and that's before the current range of cuts even starts.
There will be private police forces in this country. It is a revenue stream. Tenders will be sent out, perused, assessed and will be awarded to the same companies this government favours. There will be a lack of supervision, the appropriateness of staff will probably be of the same standard as we've seen in the past, and these people will have authority over you and, much more importantly, over me and mine. Some posters on here have suggested that police officers should be university educated. Best of luck with that with these security corporations.
It is patently obvious that this is what will happen. The reasoning will be that the warrant holding police can't cope.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 16th November 15:48
Derek Smith said:
By privatising the police I mean giving the authority to arrest and prosecute to private companies.
Haven't the RSPCA just had similar powers removed? I thought they'd recently had their wings clipped.V8 Fettler said:
How many police does evidence suggest we need?
I see lots of words in reply to this but no actual figures, not even an upper/lower estimate.Derek Smith said:
At the moment almost every force fails to respond to calls for immediate and urgent assistance in what the government feels is reasonable time, but that most callers will feel is unreasonable. That's evidence.
The kind that a good QC would rip to shreds in very little time.Derek Smith said:
How about there being insufficient police officers..... (for various things)
Yet there were sufficient to have 29 on the McCann case, where an alleged but uncertain crime took place in a foreign country.There were sufficient to wait outside the Ecuadorian embassy for a year in case a man came out.
et cetera.
Rovinghawk said:
V8 Fettler said:
How many police does evidence suggest we need?
I see lots of words in reply to this but no actual figures, not even an upper/lower estimate.If it's just reacting / responding and dealing with people whom are arrested, then that requires lesser numbers than if you want a more proactive force with greater capacity for things like policing the roads, executing warrants, disrupting organised crime and any form of neighbourhood policing etc etc.
There are data measurements to bring some figures to the table (number of crimes / incidents etc), but a lot of work and benefit / cost isn't measurable.
We're heading towards a very 1 dimensional capacity in terms of responding the emergencies and dealing with prisoners so we have to be clear that's what we want.
Rovinghawk said:
Derek Smith said:
At the moment almost every force fails to respond to calls for immediate and urgent assistance in what the government feels is reasonable time, but that most callers will feel is unreasonable. That's evidence.
The kind that a good QC would rip to shreds in very little time.The time the police should attend a specific graded incident vs the time they are attending and how that changes over time. Changes in data could provide a very good indication as to supply vs demand and where it needs to be.
La Liga said:
There's a more fundamental question that requires asking: what should the police be doing?
I agree totally. Unfortunately, many different people will have many different answers. The only democratic way would be a vote- an election similar to one we recently had. La Liga said:
It's probably one of the most measurable aspects of policing.
Measure what's important- don't make important that which we can measure. 'Reasonable' is such a vague term.I think it's an important one. If an 'immediate' graded incident comes in, then the police should get there in 10 minutes. If they're doing this on fewer and fewer occasions, then that is a concerning indication, since this is the most important thing an emergency service needs to do.
It'd be an interesting measurement for the NHS in terms of their ambulances. Anecdotally they are really struggling in peak times. I've heard on a number of occasions they have limited themselves to life and death responses. I don't know the ins and outs of NHS funding, but my understanding was their funding was pretty much ring-fenced.
It'd be an interesting measurement for the NHS in terms of their ambulances. Anecdotally they are really struggling in peak times. I've heard on a number of occasions they have limited themselves to life and death responses. I don't know the ins and outs of NHS funding, but my understanding was their funding was pretty much ring-fenced.
A few short years ago it was the knee jerk reaction of the right to support the police.
This was bad for the service.
It is now knee-jerk by jerks to criticise the police and support the Cameron stance despite ample evidence that it is causing problems, even before the next round of cuts.
This is bad for the public.
Let's start a new thread or two: Wasn't it great before security corporations got their powers over us, or perhaps, GCSEs required to join the security corporation policing wings.
I talk with serving officers of three police forces. Earlier this year I spoke with a DC who was in charge of a serious series of major crimes, which including the shooting at point blank range of an innocent who made no move towards them. As I say, serious crime. In the old days it would have been a DI i/c with a DCI reviewing.
Yet some people seem to know instinctively that things are hunky dory in the service and there's manpower to spare.
The rather silly RSPCA comment is easy to destroy and should be obvious to all, but I'll indulge myself.
It paid the government no money, so is not a private police force.
It is not run by one of the favoured security corporations that the government favour, for whatever reason.
It was seen as left wing and there was pressure from the nutty right of the tory party against it.
It was against hunting with hounds.
It was a decision based on partiality.
I'm not suggesting it was the wrong thing to do, I know too little about the matter and the RSPCA. I know that it was seen as a left wing organisation and its authority was withdrawn after pressure from the nutty right which criticised it for concentrating on matters such as hunting bans and not on the welfare of domesticated animals.
This was bad for the service.
It is now knee-jerk by jerks to criticise the police and support the Cameron stance despite ample evidence that it is causing problems, even before the next round of cuts.
This is bad for the public.
Let's start a new thread or two: Wasn't it great before security corporations got their powers over us, or perhaps, GCSEs required to join the security corporation policing wings.
I talk with serving officers of three police forces. Earlier this year I spoke with a DC who was in charge of a serious series of major crimes, which including the shooting at point blank range of an innocent who made no move towards them. As I say, serious crime. In the old days it would have been a DI i/c with a DCI reviewing.
Yet some people seem to know instinctively that things are hunky dory in the service and there's manpower to spare.
The rather silly RSPCA comment is easy to destroy and should be obvious to all, but I'll indulge myself.
It paid the government no money, so is not a private police force.
It is not run by one of the favoured security corporations that the government favour, for whatever reason.
It was seen as left wing and there was pressure from the nutty right of the tory party against it.
It was against hunting with hounds.
It was a decision based on partiality.
I'm not suggesting it was the wrong thing to do, I know too little about the matter and the RSPCA. I know that it was seen as a left wing organisation and its authority was withdrawn after pressure from the nutty right which criticised it for concentrating on matters such as hunting bans and not on the welfare of domesticated animals.
Rovinghawk said:
My understanding is that they're on the brink of crisis & need more money. Exactly the same as every day for the last 40+ years.
Absolute rubbish. There has never been a time when we've sleeved serious crime. That is major crime. One tick in the box, but major crime.
The rather silly glib reply says nothing about the current situation. Nothing. 40 years, and yet you accuse the police of pulling figures out of the air.
I'm not sure you fully understand the nature of the democratic process in this country with your comment on voting. No one, no one, voted to reduce police funding by 40% and the number of officers by 50. With the possible exception of you of course as you seem to have known about it even though it wasn't in the manifesto.
Have you no idea how voting works in the UK?
So should we sleeve major crime where there's a body? Should we fail to respond to burglaries? Should we leave the streets clear of policing? Should major crime units be denuded of staff?
The police are not able to respond to all urgent calls within the government stipulated time, and this is not due to bad systems or management but lack of officers.
You have no idea.
DonkeyApple said:
University degrees are pretty worthless today.
No they are not.They are an essential qualfication in many cases. Try getting a job as a chemical engineer without a degree.
Going to university is generally a good thing, aside from the ludicrous levels of debt.
In general it does tend to increase tollerance as people are exposed to others from different walks of life etc.
However unless you actually need a specific qualification then I'd struggle to justify the time, effort and cash required to obtain it.
Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 16th November 17:25
La Liga said:
I think it's an important one. If an 'immediate' graded incident comes in, then the police should get there in 10 minutes. If they're doing this on fewer and fewer occasions, then that is a concerning indication, since this is the most important thing an emergency service needs to do.
It'd be an interesting measurement for the NHS in terms of their ambulances. Anecdotally they are really struggling in peak times. I've heard on a number of occasions they have limited themselves to life and death responses. I don't know the ins and outs of NHS funding, but my understanding was their funding was pretty much ring-fenced.
the problem is that the evidence base for response standards is poor It'd be an interesting measurement for the NHS in terms of their ambulances. Anecdotally they are really struggling in peak times. I've heard on a number of occasions they have limited themselves to life and death responses. I don't know the ins and outs of NHS funding, but my understanding was their funding was pretty much ring-fenced.
realistically the A8 for ambulances is far too quick or far too slow at the same time ...
most NHS targets ( possibly exception of the cancer ones) are crowd pleasing fluff ... same can be said for many policing response standards , they are either too quick or too slow because of the issues of remote triage ...
Edited by mph1977 on Monday 16th November 18:38
La Liga said:
I think it's an important one. If an 'immediate' graded incident comes in, then the police should get there in 10 minutes. If they're doing this on fewer and fewer occasions, then that is a concerning indication, since this is the most important thing an emergency service needs to do.
I have to travel all over our force so listen to all of the areas and I constantly hear 'missed early response' and 'missed immediate' and it's based purely on the lack of available officers. My old shift back when I did response paraded about 40, its lucky to see 18 now. Madness!Derek Smith said:
Rovinghawk said:
My understanding is that they're on the brink of crisis & need more money. Exactly the same as every day for the last 40+ years.
StuffLa Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
I wondered if you'd pop up. We've been here before: people will say one thing to a pollster, but when it comes to voting they'll frequently vote for something else. The Tories have made it clear for years that they would continue to cut police budgets, did people vote in the last election to prevent the proposed cuts? No.
The matter was to do with trust and who the public trust more. It had nothing to do with anything else you've written. I'll talk you through it. The first part was RH speculating on who is trusted more:
Rovinghawk said:
It's sad to say that the current government probably has greater public trust than the police. You might wish to address that.
The second part was me presenting indications he was incorrect. La Liga said:
And you've "probably" just made that up because it's what you want to be the case.
Plc vs Gov.
The third part was you mentioning who people voted for and the policies of a specific political party, all of which are irrelevant to the original point about who is trusted more / less. Plc vs Gov.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff