University degree required to join the police

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

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.

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.

"Fully" was used to head off your use of examples of part privatisation.

No statistics? I thought the cuts were already deep?

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

You have a flawed belief in the accuracy of opinion polls. If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.

I don't think that stands to reason and is ample to dismiss the data. Do people need to trust specific politicians to vote for a political party? Perhaps if you asked people about other political parties they'd trust them even less, so in relative terms, the conservatives may be the most trusted. Who knows? It doesn't matter as the poll isn't addressing who'll vote for whom and why. It's asking who do you trust to tell the truth or not.

There is a lot of room for a margin of error in both the YouGov poll and the one with data in the Ipsos MORI, which is taking data from 1983.

V8 Fettler said:

No statistics? I thought the cuts were already deep?

I thought it was a lagging indicator.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

You have a flawed belief in the accuracy of opinion polls. If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.

I don't think that stands to reason and is ample to dismiss the data. Do people need to trust specific politicians to vote for a political party? Perhaps if you asked people about other political parties they'd trust them even less, so in relative terms, the conservatives may be the most trusted. Who knows? It doesn't matter as the poll isn't addressing who'll vote for whom and why. It's asking who do you trust to tell the truth or not.

There is a lot of room for a margin of error in both the YouGov poll and the one with data in the Ipsos MORI, which is taking data from 1983.

V8 Fettler said:

No statistics? I thought the cuts were already deep?

I thought it was a lagging indicator.

There is no margin for error in the general election result: more austerity, more cuts.

The lagging indicator could lag by one month. Do you not have a graph showing police numbers by year over the last 10 years? I would look for it myself but you seem to have every graph ever created up your sleeve.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

No statistics? I thought the cuts were already deep?

You want statistics? What about the post below, pending the corrupt government ones which last showed more police officers on patrol than before the cuts.

Greendubber said:

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!

Not convinced? Then what about:

Brighton used to be divided into two sub divisions, east and west, each run under a super. Next door there was Hove, also with its own super.

Brighton west, the busiest subdivision with regards to calls requiring response outside of the metropolitan areas, used to regularly muster enough for three cars, at least one, maybe two motorcyclists, a support van on Wednesdays through to Saturday, sometimes of a Sunday as well. The support van was sometimes manned by officers from east if manpower was 'low'.

Brighton east had two cars, often one motorcyclist.

Both divisions had foot patrol officers.

During times of mutual aid west Brighton had a minimum manning level that we could not breach. If there were injuries, etc, or illness, then overtime was used to fill the gap. Sometimes east used to assist if they were up to their minimum levels. It was seen as imperative to have officers on foot patrol but even so, we occasionally ran short.

Even at times outside of the mutual aid, we often 'ran out of' officers to answer calls. An injured sergeant, on control room duties, took a van out one night to answer a call to domestic violence.

The whole of Brighton now often has just three singled crewed cars. Hove one. No foot patrols. The whole of Brighton now frequently musters less than the minimum level that Brighton west used to have but still occasionally assists Hove officers. Or at one time I'm told, Hove officer.

These are forums so suggesting that people should not post without some idea of what they are talking about is a nonsense. I contribute to the rugby forum but know little about the game despite it being my main sport. Other posters are often supportive but then I bow to what I see as superior knowledge, and I have no agenda. I'm just a fan.

So I'm not after shutting up those who have really haven't a clue what they are talking about, but really, serving officers on here have pointed out the problems often enough. The evidence is there for all to see, quite plainly.

The suggestion that because a minority of the country voted a specific party in power gives it the right to put the safety of the country at risk by reducing the police to a level where they can't service normal demands is really a pathetic argument.

Do you think that demand is constant, that burglars take it in turn to break into homes, that drunks put their request in to run though the town centre damaging property so they don't overlap with a nearby town, that rapes, assaults, intimidation and domestic violence are spread evenly throughout the day, that courts are sympathetic to the police requests not to give evidence that is in their statements?

Crime goes in clumps and there has to be a reserve to deal with it properly. But there is not only no reserve of officers, there isn't a sufficiency to do the day to day policing.

For a laugh, tell me how many officers are patrolling Eastbourne at the very moment. And then tell me how many will be on the street at turfing out time.

Go on, give it a go. Have some fun. Your post:

V8 Fettler said:

If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.

suggests you have a sense of humour, even if a rather odd one. Or perhaps you forgot they weren’t voted in last time so the again is incorrect, and that the general election was nothing more than an exercise in which is least worse.

[Red 4]

V8 Fettler said:

Do you not have a graph showing police numbers by year over the last 10 years?

You don't need one.

It is about demand v. resources.

The Chief Constable of Lancashire Police appeared in the press recently.

He stated that if the proposed cuts continue then "Lancashire Constabulary will not be viable as a police service". They are strong words from a Chief.

A number of Police and Crime Commissioners have also threatened to take the government to court concerning the cuts and the way the police are funded/ changes in the pipeline.

Do not expect things to get better.

[Pete317]

Derek Smith said:

...and that the general election was nothing more than an exercise in which is least worse.

Isn't that generally the case?

[Derek Smith]

Pete317 said:

Isn't that generally the case?

That's my point. We don't vote for policies. With, in effect, a two party state the choice is, obviously, somewhat limited. I voted for labour in '87 to keep out the squabbling mess the tories had become.

Manifestos are neither binding nor detailed. We have no idea what we vote for.

[FurryExocet]

Change is happening in Surrey because of the cuts, we just won't go to certain jobs anymore. Other agencies will just have to pick up the slack.

http://www.surrey.police.uk/News/Statements/Articl...

As for degrees? It may well benefit those that want to shoot up the promotion ladder, but there are plenty of us that just want to continue to police the streets and the only degree you need for that, is from the university of life

[mph1977]

FurryExocet said:

<snip>

As for degrees? It may well benefit those that want to shoot up the promotion ladder, but there are plenty of us that just want to continue to police the streets and the only degree you need for that, is from the university of life

same bullst rhetoric seen in a variety of professions over the past near 50 years ... same failed statements ... next you'll be telling us that degree bobbies are too 'posh to cuff' and sit around doing paperwork all day and implying that their probationary period doesn;t include the same focus on actually delivering services as it did in the old days ...

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

There is no margin for error in the general election result: more austerity, more cuts.

And there is no relevance in the economic plans of the government to the point in issue; who is trusted more by the public, the police or politicians?

La Liga said:

Plc vs Gov.

[Derek Smith]

FurryExocet said:

Change is happening in Surrey because of the cuts, we just won't go to certain jobs anymore. Other agencies will just have to pick up the slack.

http://www.surrey.police.uk/News/Statements/Articl...

My old force's central call taking room tried a method similar to that proposed by the the CC Surrey. They just used to give other telephone numbers to call or 'sort it out yourself'. Didn't work. A noisy party would change half an hour later to fighting in the street as the local council no longer dealt with noise. A patient being difficult to control would turn into a man threatening staff with whatever as they had no staff. An ambulance call with a difficult patient would result in ambulance crew being threatened. The fire service being told to sort their own traffic problems out normally ended up with the road blocked but the police didn't turn up for that either.

They had call takers in tears after telling people that it was not on their list for response.

If, as the CC implies, the service will no longer be the back-stop, then I feel that the public's trust in the police will be destroyed.

It is a shame. Perhaps we could borrow some of the 10,000 extra police the French are recruiting.

It is a sad day when it it official policy, it seems, not to attend burglaries. I always considered them similar to an offence against the person given the distress they normally caused.

I accept the necessity through lack of alternatives, but I doubt the public will.

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

I feel that the public's trust in the police will be destroyed.

That ship hasn't sailed yet but it seems that the mooring ropes have been cast off. One of the many reasons (IMO) is the grubbing around for sources of revenue.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

There is no margin for error in the general election result: more austerity, more cuts.

And there is no relevance in the economic plans of the government to the point in issue; who is trusted more by the public, the police or politicians?

La Liga said:

Plc vs Gov.

You continually focus on trust as defined by various opinion polls that may be based on flawed methodology. You would do better to attempt to generate real support from the general public.

[anonymous-user]

Why's the methodology flawed? Because you think it is?

It's asking people how much they trust respective occupations to tell the truth or not over a large period of time. Doctors score very highly. In your world does that mean that the public don't trust doctors because the indications are that people do? Are you saying there's no weight whatsoever the data? Does the polls make people give the wrong answers when asked simple, direct questions?

The original point I address was that the current government are "probably" trusted more than the police. I have provided indications that it's "probably" wrong. I didn't say it's absolute.

If anyone has evidence (not individual anecdotal) the current government are trusted more than the police then please share. I am happy to rely on the long-term occupation indications until something with greater weight comes along.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

No statistics? I thought the cuts were already deep?

You want statistics? What about the post below, pending the corrupt government ones which last showed more police officers on patrol than before the cuts.

Greendubber said:

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!

Not convinced? Then what about:

Brighton used to be divided into two sub divisions, east and west, each run under a super. Next door there was Hove, also with its own super.

Brighton west, the busiest subdivision with regards to calls requiring response outside of the metropolitan areas, used to regularly muster enough for three cars, at least one, maybe two motorcyclists, a support van on Wednesdays through to Saturday, sometimes of a Sunday as well. The support van was sometimes manned by officers from east if manpower was 'low'.

Brighton east had two cars, often one motorcyclist.

Both divisions had foot patrol officers.

During times of mutual aid west Brighton had a minimum manning level that we could not breach. If there were injuries, etc, or illness, then overtime was used to fill the gap. Sometimes east used to assist if they were up to their minimum levels. It was seen as imperative to have officers on foot patrol but even so, we occasionally ran short.

Even at times outside of the mutual aid, we often 'ran out of' officers to answer calls. An injured sergeant, on control room duties, took a van out one night to answer a call to domestic violence.

The whole of Brighton now often has just three singled crewed cars. Hove one. No foot patrols. The whole of Brighton now frequently musters less than the minimum level that Brighton west used to have but still occasionally assists Hove officers. Or at one time I'm told, Hove officer.

These are forums so suggesting that people should not post without some idea of what they are talking about is a nonsense. I contribute to the rugby forum but know little about the game despite it being my main sport. Other posters are often supportive but then I bow to what I see as superior knowledge, and I have no agenda. I'm just a fan.

So I'm not after shutting up those who have really haven't a clue what they are talking about, but really, serving officers on here have pointed out the problems often enough. The evidence is there for all to see, quite plainly.

The suggestion that because a minority of the country voted a specific party in power gives it the right to put the safety of the country at risk by reducing the police to a level where they can't service normal demands is really a pathetic argument.

Do you think that demand is constant, that burglars take it in turn to break into homes, that drunks put their request in to run though the town centre damaging property so they don't overlap with a nearby town, that rapes, assaults, intimidation and domestic violence are spread evenly throughout the day, that courts are sympathetic to the police requests not to give evidence that is in their statements?

Crime goes in clumps and there has to be a reserve to deal with it properly. But there is not only no reserve of officers, there isn't a sufficiency to do the day to day policing.

For a laugh, tell me how many officers are patrolling Eastbourne at the very moment. And then tell me how many will be on the street at turfing out time.

Go on, give it a go. Have some fun. Your post:

V8 Fettler said:

If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.

suggests you have a sense of humour, even if a rather odd one. Or perhaps you forgot they weren’t voted in last time so the again is incorrect, and that the general election was nothing more than an exercise in which is least worse.

You are confusing the election of a politician with the election of a party. You're also forgetting that the distrusted Tories have been voted in on several occasions over the last two hundred years or so.

Odd sense of humour? I'll take that as a compliment.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

You are confusing the election of a politician with the election of a party.

The confusion over politician vs party may belong to you given the unfounded assumption you continue to make that individual politicians need to be trusted for their party to be voted for. It's quite possible people don't trust individual politicians but are still quite happy to vote in a party - what other choice do they have if they wish you actively vote?

There are a few ex-mining constituencies who simply won't ever vote for the Conservatives. It doesn't matter if they trust their MP or the politicians of the Labour party, they automatically vote red.

Equally, there are areas which are always going to be blue as they come from families and communities that always vote blue.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

You are confusing the election of a politician with the election of a party. You're also forgetting that the distrusted Tories have been voted in on several occasions over the last two hundred years or so.

You would appear to be the one confused by the democratic process in this country.

People do not vote for a politician; they vote for a party. There is a choice of two in effect in England (and Wales). So people do not vote for particular policies as this would be impossible. As parties do not produce binding policies, no one votes for a particular one. No one knows what the government will do.

As for your suggestion of two hundred years, I think you will find that it hasn't even been 100 years since this country became anything like a democracy. I, and many others, would suggest 1928 is the cut-off date.

Up until then there were scarcely parties as we know them. Crossing the chamber was common. It wasn't until the third reform act that there was anything like voting as we know it, but even then it stopped at the posher suburbs. Disraeli's suggestion the second RA gave the vote to anyone in the massive, and majority, working class was pure spin. A modern politician.

The great, much rejoiced, mother of all parliaments was nothing more than a group of pressure groups pushing their own agendas, rather like now in some ways.

[gemini]

FurryExocet said:

Change is happening in Surrey because of the cuts, we just won't go to certain jobs anymore. Other agencies will just have to pick up the slack.

Perhaps a little naive? They won't! Just like social care clocks off at 4 pm Friday!

FurryExocet said:

As for degrees? It may well benefit those that want to shoot up the promotion ladder, but there are plenty of us that just want to continue to police the streets and the only degree you need for that, is from the university of life

However I agree there.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

Why's the methodology flawed? Because you think it is?

It's asking people how much they trust respective occupations to tell the truth or not over a large period of time. Doctors score very highly. In your world does that mean that the public don't trust doctors because the indications are that people do? Are you saying there's no weight whatsoever the data? Does the polls make people give the wrong answers when asked simple, direct questions?

The original point I address was that the current government are "probably" trusted more than the police. I have provided indications that it's "probably" wrong. I didn't say it's absolute.

If anyone has evidence (not individual anecdotal) the current government are trusted more than the police then please share. I am happy to rely on the long-term occupation indications until something with greater weight comes along.

Haven't we been here before?
You post some graphs and data showing the level of trust in the police declared by people to pollsters.
I could then post a link showing that opinion polls are generally flawed, using the polls prior to the last election as evidence.
You could then post some more graphs and data based on polls.
I could then post links to august reports created by august experts to demonstrate the fall in the public's trust of the police over several years.
You could then post something about taking alternative views.
I could then agree that there are alternative views.

You're missing the point about the difference between trust and support. You and your profession need to generate real public support for the police instead of relying on flawed polls dealing with trust.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

You are confusing the election of a politician with the election of a party.

The confusion over politician vs party may belong to you given the unfounded assumption you continue to make that individual politicians need to be trusted for their party to be voted for. It's quite possible people don't trust individual politicians but are still quite happy to vote in a party - what other choice do they have if they wish you actively vote?

There are a few ex-mining constituencies who simply won't ever vote for the Conservatives. It doesn't matter if they trust their MP or the politicians of the Labour party, they automatically vote red.

Equally, there are areas which are always going to be blue as they come from families and communities that always vote blue.

At the risk of stating the very obvious: senior Tory politicians have been elected to parliament in general elections where the Tory party has not been elected into power.

Why are you dwelling on trust, again? It's meaningful public support that you and your colleagues require if you are going to effectively fight the proposed cuts to the police service. You're not going to get that support by relying on the trust of a fickle public.

It is possible to generally support an organisation without generally trusting that organisation, hence my earlier post re: Tory politicians being elected to continue the process of cuts to the police service where the former has a lower level of public trust than the latter.

I don't generally trust any of the contractors or suppliers that I deal with on a professional and personal basis, but I still utilise their services and products because - pragmatically - the level of trust is irrelevant.