University degree required to join the police
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.
I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.The subject of the side discussion that started when Rovinghawk made his comment was trust.
You then randomly started talking about support like it is the same thing as trust. It isn't.
La Liga said:
I wonder if we'll see some consistency with V8 Fettler's link between support and funding given what's happened with today's Spending Review.
If the cuts to the police = lack of support, and proposed cuts = a continuation of this, then what does "real term increases" this term mean? It must mean lots of support, right? To go from a negative to a positive?
I look forward to seeing the excuse why this link doesn't work the other way around.
The Spending Review clearly indicates the importance of support over trust. As far as I am aware, the public trust in the police and the Tory trust in the police hasn't changed recently, however, the perceived terrorist threat to the UK has increased substantially following the recent attacks in Paris. The Tories would have been foolhardy in the extreme to have continued with the cuts in the knowledge that a terrorist attack in the UK would have made the Tory position very difficult if further cuts to the police budget had occurred. If the cuts to the police = lack of support, and proposed cuts = a continuation of this, then what does "real term increases" this term mean? It must mean lots of support, right? To go from a negative to a positive?
I look forward to seeing the excuse why this link doesn't work the other way around.
V8 Fettler said:
Again, I've already answered your garbled question re: "Who was talking about support from RH's original point ... ". You require me to respond purely on issues of trust, I chose to highlight the fact that the Tories were elected irrespective of trust issues.
Irrespective of it not being under discussion and you making no mention you were discussing it. Not to mention you'd be stating the obvious since anyone can see the data vs the election result.
V8 Fettler said:
Thank you for telling when, where and how I can use the word "but"
Where did I do that? I didn't. You've made it up. I stated how it read. When two people are discussing a matter and you reply with, 'but...', it reads like a counter-point which is continuing on the same subject matter. If it wasn't, you should have written what you were talking about. Basically you've tried to worm out of saying that because the politicians were elected that detracted from the validity of the data. You even wrote this:
V8 Fettler said:
If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.
Why would you write the above if you were merely highlighting the fact they were voted in regardless of trust issues? V8 Fettler said:
You don't appear to realise how valuable the support of the public is.
How can you conclude that? V8 Fettler said:
I assumed that you had some sort of possession of this thread, given that you attempt to control how posters post on this thread.
Where and how have I tried to control how anyone has posted? V8 Fettler said:
Most posts on PH meander
Most people who do the meandering explain they are talking about something different without expecting the reader to have a crystal ball. For example, if two people were debating the relative trust levels between the police and politicians, if I replied to them and were talking about something else I'd mention that something else, since I know the original posters aren't mind-readers.
V8 Fettler said:
The Spending Review clearly indicates the importance of support over trust. As far as I am aware, the public trust in the police and the Tory trust in the police hasn't changed recently, however, the perceived terrorist threat to the UK has increased substantially following the recent attacks in Paris. The Tories would have been foolhardy in the extreme to have continued with the cuts in the knowledge that a terrorist attack in the UK would have made the Tory position very difficult if further cuts to the police budget had occurred.
So you've de-linked the simplistic funding and support proposition now because you can't suggest that cuts = lack of support without suggesting an increase = greater support. You've replaced it with a casual story you've made up about counter-terrorism (which is risk, not trust and support) and political face being the reason. The latter is speculation which is conveniently absent when drawing comparisons with the NHS. That's the problem with evidence-less convenience, it's unravels quickly. To suggest there's any simplistic, global link between public support and an economic plan is foolish.
V8 Fettler said:
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.
I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.The subject of the side discussion that started when Rovinghawk made his comment was trust.
You then randomly started talking about support like it is the same thing as trust. It isn't.
You changed the subject from trust to support.
I think you're now trying to obfuscate rather than accept that your original point was wrong.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Again, I've already answered your garbled question re: "Who was talking about support from RH's original point ... ". You require me to respond purely on issues of trust, I chose to highlight the fact that the Tories were elected irrespective of trust issues.
Irrespective of it not being under discussion and you making no mention you were discussing it. Not to mention you'd be stating the obvious since anyone can see the data vs the election result.
V8 Fettler said:
Thank you for telling when, where and how I can use the word "but"
Where did I do that? I didn't. You've made it up. I stated how it read. When two people are discussing a matter and you reply with, 'but...', it reads like a counter-point which is continuing on the same subject matter. If it wasn't, you should have written what you were talking about. Basically you've tried to worm out of saying that because the politicians were elected that detracted from the validity of the data. You even wrote this:
V8 Fettler said:
If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.
Why would you write the above if you were merely highlighting the fact they were voted in regardless of trust issues? V8 Fettler said:
You don't appear to realise how valuable the support of the public is.
How can you conclude that? V8 Fettler said:
I assumed that you had some sort of possession of this thread, given that you attempt to control how posters post on this thread.
Where and how have I tried to control how anyone has posted? V8 Fettler said:
Most posts on PH meander
Most people who do the meandering explain they are talking about something different without expecting the reader to have a crystal ball. For example, if two people were debating the relative trust levels between the police and politicians, if I replied to them and were talking about something else I'd mention that something else, since I know the original posters aren't mind-readers.
V8 Fettler said:
The Spending Review clearly indicates the importance of support over trust. As far as I am aware, the public trust in the police and the Tory trust in the police hasn't changed recently, however, the perceived terrorist threat to the UK has increased substantially following the recent attacks in Paris. The Tories would have been foolhardy in the extreme to have continued with the cuts in the knowledge that a terrorist attack in the UK would have made the Tory position very difficult if further cuts to the police budget had occurred.
So you've de-linked the simplistic funding and support proposition now because you can't suggest that cuts = lack of support without suggesting an increase = greater support. You've replaced it with a casual story you've made up about counter-terrorism (which is risk, not trust and support) and political face being the reason. The latter is speculation which is conveniently absent when drawing comparisons with the NHS. That's the problem with evidence-less convenience, it's unravels quickly. To suggest there's any simplistic, global link between public support and an economic plan is foolish.
Again, we did the trust thing to death in another thread, why would I want to revisit? Although there is common ground between trust and support, perhaps it's time for a Venn diagram, not had one of those for a while:
Pale blue = support and wishy washy pink = trust. I wood of preferred lime green and burnt orange on a black background, but couldn't find one of them Venn diags at short notice.
Thank you for your description of how you would post on a thread. Am I now supposed to follow your example? Oh look, there's that control thing again, but I recognise that you just can't help it.
If you and your colleagues understood how important the support of the public was then perhaps your organisation wouldn't have suffered the budget cuts it has. See the sacred NHS for an example of an organisation where the public support is such that no meaningful budget cuts occur.
Counter-terrorism has to be funded; the public purse is not bottomless so if the risk of terrorism is low then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also be low. If the risk of terrorism increases then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also increase; is that not logical?
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.
I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.The subject of the side discussion that started when Rovinghawk made his comment was trust.
You then randomly started talking about support like it is the same thing as trust. It isn't.
You changed the subject from trust to support.
I think you're now trying to obfuscate rather than accept that your original point was wrong.
You say my original point was wrong? Do you mean my original point about the Tories winning the 2015 election?
V8 Fettler said:
Again, we did the trust thing to death in another thread, why would I want to revisit?
You tell me, you're the one who replied to two people discussing the relative trust of two 'organisations' and commented giving no indication that you were talking about something else, and then followed it up with a sentence reinforcing you were talking about: V8 Fettler said:
If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.
V8 Fettler said:
Although there is common ground between trust and support, perhaps it's time for a Venn diagram, not had one of those for a while
Who are you debating the differences and overlap between trust and support with? It's must be some made-up person because no-one is debating it with you or raising counter-points about the differences / overlap. It'd a bit odd to keep debating points that no-one else is. If we're going to throw around silly accusations of 'control', then I'd propose trying to continuously force (re-read the thread, it's clear you've attempted this) a subject no-one else is discussing into a thread is trying to exercise control and direction, as opposed to defining 'control' as highlighting someone avoiding questions they don't want to answer, for example.
V8 Fettler said:
If you and your colleagues understood how important the support of the public was then perhaps your organisation wouldn't have suffered the budget cuts it has.
Or perhaps we would have and perhaps we do. Meaningless speculation and opinion. V8 Fettler said:
See the sacred NHS for an example of an organisation where the public support is such that no meaningful budget cuts occur.
The political risk of cuts to the NHS and the public's reaction cannot be automatically extrapolated to mean that those who've had cuts aren't supported / sufficiently supported. You saying it doesn't mean it's true. If you want to continue to draw meaningless casual connections between funding and support, check out the data around the public's opinions on foreign aid vs the funding / 'ring-fencing'. It's also quite obvious you have double standards when it comes to extrapolating casual connections in reverse.
1) The NHS being ring-fenced = sufficient public support.
2) The police having had cuts = insufficient public support.
Ok, however, when applying the same 'logic' to what occurred yesterday;
1) The police having had cuts = insufficient public support.
2) The police being 'ring-fenced' = sufficient public support.
The second 2) doesn't suit you, so you'll replace the cause of support with the cause of terrorism to side-step the inconsistency.
Why the double standards around the cause / effect?
V8 Fettler said:
Counter-terrorism has to be funded; the public purse is not bottomless so if the risk of terrorism is low then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also be low. If the risk of terrorism increases then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also increase; is that not logical?
The risk isn't much higher if any higher at all. Not anywhere in itself enough to justify backing-down from 10-20% funding cuts - how much of that money do you think will go on CT work? A fraction. The additional 'defensive' spending covers CT activities and specific policing CT activities could be ring-fenced / increased as was proposed without the other general funding. That's true in an objective sense and I'd speculate could be sold to the public.
XCP said:
I can see now why some are supporting the idea of degree qualified police. It must be so that they can follow the quasi science and convoluted argument in this thread!
It's no different from someone trying to BS themselves out of something in an interview. V8 Fettler said:
Counter-terrorism has to be funded; the public purse is not bottomless so if the risk of terrorism is low then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also be low. If the risk of terrorism increases then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also increase; is that not logical?
Ah, good old logic.The problem with that argument is that risk is one of those woolly words that can mean anything to the person putting the argument forward.
The risk of anyone in an EU country being directly involved in a terrorist incident is very low indeed. Almost nonsensically low so, according to your logic, as expressed above, investment should be low. The risk of being injured or killed during what was a civil war by an NI terrorist in this country was very low. So we should have invested little in counter-terrorism. Supremely logical.
To take it a step further, the risk of an air accident to an airliner is very low so we should cut the budget of the AAIB to reflect this risk factor.
The risk of a terrorist incident in Belgium is only slightly higher than in many other EU countries so their massive investment in counter-terrorism should be reduced.
Yet what do we find?
Whilst the risk of terrorism in this country is low, the fear of it and the public response demands a substantial investment. The civil war had very limited impact in this country, but the investment in the security services (including the police at that time) was very high. An air crash has a massive effect on the public, so investment in investigation, legislation and supervision is remarkably high.
The Belgians are currently paying a high price for their security which, according to you, because the risk is low is rather a waste of money.
I await your twisting of the words you have used.
You are Humpty Dumpty and I claim my £5.
V8 Fettler said:
Somebody changed the subject of this thread from "new plod needs a degree" to "trust", I made a minor meander onto support, see Venn diag above.
You say my original point was wrong? Do you mean my original point about the Tories winning the 2015 election?
You said this some pages back to support your view that the opinion ppole was incorrect:You say my original point was wrong? Do you mean my original point about the Tories winning the 2015 election?
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.
Not that long back you said:V8 Fettler said:
Read through my posts on this thread, you'll see I've described the crucial difference between trust and support: you can support an organisation without necessarily trusting said organisation.
You see, you answered your own question.The opinion pole can be right, the Police are more trusted than politicians even though people voted the current government into power
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Again, we did the trust thing to death in another thread, why would I want to revisit?
You tell me, you're the one who replied to two people discussing the relative trust of two 'organisations' and commented giving no indication that you were talking about something else, and then followed it up with a sentence reinforcing you were talking about: V8 Fettler said:
If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.
V8 Fettler said:
Although there is common ground between trust and support, perhaps it's time for a Venn diagram, not had one of those for a while
Who are you debating the differences and overlap between trust and support with? It's must be some made-up person because no-one is debating it with you or raising counter-points about the differences / overlap. It'd a bit odd to keep debating points that no-one else is. If we're going to throw around silly accusations of 'control', then I'd propose trying to continuously force (re-read the thread, it's clear you've attempted this) a subject no-one else is discussing into a thread is trying to exercise control and direction, as opposed to defining 'control' as highlighting someone avoiding questions they don't want to answer, for example.
V8 Fettler said:
If you and your colleagues understood how important the support of the public was then perhaps your organisation wouldn't have suffered the budget cuts it has.
Or perhaps we would have and perhaps we do. Meaningless speculation and opinion. V8 Fettler said:
See the sacred NHS for an example of an organisation where the public support is such that no meaningful budget cuts occur.
The political risk of cuts to the NHS and the public's reaction cannot be automatically extrapolated to mean that those who've had cuts aren't supported / sufficiently supported. You saying it doesn't mean it's true. If you want to continue to draw meaningless casual connections between funding and support, check out the data around the public's opinions on foreign aid vs the funding / 'ring-fencing'. It's also quite obvious you have double standards when it comes to extrapolating casual connections in reverse.
1) The NHS being ring-fenced = sufficient public support.
2) The police having had cuts = insufficient public support.
Ok, however, when applying the same 'logic' to what occurred yesterday;
1) The police having had cuts = insufficient public support.
2) The police being 'ring-fenced' = sufficient public support.
The second 2) doesn't suit you, so you'll replace the cause of support with the cause of terrorism to side-step the inconsistency.
Why the double standards around the cause / effect?
V8 Fettler said:
Counter-terrorism has to be funded; the public purse is not bottomless so if the risk of terrorism is low then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also be low. If the risk of terrorism increases then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also increase; is that not logical?
The risk isn't much higher if any higher at all. Not anywhere in itself enough to justify backing-down from 10-20% funding cuts - how much of that money do you think will go on CT work? A fraction. The additional 'defensive' spending covers CT activities and specific policing CT activities could be ring-fenced / increased as was proposed without the other general funding. That's true in an objective sense and I'd speculate could be sold to the public.
In many ways, support is more important than trust, I'm highlighting the differences between the two. An organisation cannot survive on trust alone, but the two aren't mutually exclusive (see Venn diagram). Am I not allowed to bring another element into a discussion thread over which you have control?
I've dealt with most if not all of the points you've raised, even the garbled ones, although I have used a broad brush on occasion.
Joe Public takes to the streets to support the NHS, can't say I've seen similar public support for the police. As previously, your Fed fails dismally in this respect, probably because they're down in the bunker.
Varying expenditure on foreign aid has little direct effect on the day-to-day lives of most British people, varying expenditure on the NHS certainly does.
The current Tory admin is not stupid, unlike many of the Opposition party; if there is a terrorist outrage in the UK following continued cuts in the police budget then the Tories would be under substantial pressure from the public. In my experience, most of the general public want to see an increased visible presence by police following a terrorist outrage, the Tories have ensured that they cannot be accused of continuing to cut the police budget in such a scenario.
If the risk of terrorist outrage in the UK is no higher following the Paris attacks then why wheel out Special Forces onto British streets? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-i... You also need to consider the public perception of risk when considering public support for the police.
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
Counter-terrorism has to be funded; the public purse is not bottomless so if the risk of terrorism is low then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also be low. If the risk of terrorism increases then the funding to support counter-terrorism should also increase; is that not logical?
Ah, good old logic.The problem with that argument is that risk is one of those woolly words that can mean anything to the person putting the argument forward.
The risk of anyone in an EU country being directly involved in a terrorist incident is very low indeed. Almost nonsensically low so, according to your logic, as expressed above, investment should be low. The risk of being injured or killed during what was a civil war by an NI terrorist in this country was very low. So we should have invested little in counter-terrorism. Supremely logical.
To take it a step further, the risk of an air accident to an airliner is very low so we should cut the budget of the AAIB to reflect this risk factor.
The risk of a terrorist incident in Belgium is only slightly higher than in many other EU countries so their massive investment in counter-terrorism should be reduced.
Yet what do we find?
Whilst the risk of terrorism in this country is low, the fear of it and the public response demands a substantial investment. The civil war had very limited impact in this country, but the investment in the security services (including the police at that time) was very high. An air crash has a massive effect on the public, so investment in investigation, legislation and supervision is remarkably high.
The Belgians are currently paying a high price for their security which, according to you, because the risk is low is rather a waste of money.
I await your twisting of the words you have used.
You are Humpty Dumpty and I claim my £5.
Meaningful assessment of risk doesn't rely solely on fatalities to date, see civil nuclear power programme in the UK for a prime example.
Humpty Dumpty? You're flailing. Please stop wasting your time on this forum Derek, go back to your desk and finish your next book.
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Somebody changed the subject of this thread from "new plod needs a degree" to "trust", I made a minor meander onto support, see Venn diag above.
You say my original point was wrong? Do you mean my original point about the Tories winning the 2015 election?
You said this some pages back to support your view that the opinion ppole was incorrect:You say my original point was wrong? Do you mean my original point about the Tories winning the 2015 election?
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.
Not that long back you said:V8 Fettler said:
Read through my posts on this thread, you'll see I've described the crucial difference between trust and support: you can support an organisation without necessarily trusting said organisation.
You see, you answered your own question.The opinion pole can be right, the Police are more trusted than politicians even though people voted the current government into power
It is possible that you now understand the relative importance of support over trust.
V8 Fettler said:
The trust issue was covered extensively in another thread, so why do you keep going back to it?
Because that was what was under discussion, and was originally your discussion until you decided to make-up you were talking about something else. V8 Fettler said:
In many ways, support is more important than trust, I'm highlighting the differences between the two.
La Liga said:
Who are you debating the differences and overlap between trust and support with? It's must be some made-up person because no-one is debating it with you or raising counter-points about the differences / overlap. It'd a bit odd to keep debating points that no-one else is.
V8 Fettler said:
I've dealt with most if not all of the points you've raised, even the garbled ones, although I have used a broad brush on occasion.
"Broad brush" i.e. avoided specific questions. V8 Fettler said:
Joe Public takes to the streets to support the NHS, can't say I've seen similar public support for the police.
Does that mean the police aren't supported / sufficiently supported? You’ve not even been clear on this point – ‘broad brush’, I expect. What are you saying? The police aren’t sufficiently supported, or not as much as the NHS? If it's simplistic volume, is Twitter not supported because Facebook is more popular? V8 Fettler said:
Varying expenditure on foreign aid has little direct effect on the day-to-day lives of most British people, varying expenditure on the NHS certainly does.
So there isn't a simplistic link between funding and support? V8 Fettler said:
The current Tory admin is not stupid, unlike many of the Opposition party; if there is a terrorist outrage in the UK following continued cuts in the police budget then the Tories would be under substantial pressure from the public. In my experience, most of the general public want to see an increased visible presence by police following a terrorist outrage, the Tories have ensured that they cannot be accused of continuing to cut the police budget in such a scenario.
You’ve basically written that the public support not being blown up and support those who can stop that occurring, hence the government's decision. Finally, a little consistency.
V8 Fettler said:
If the risk of terrorist outrage in the UK is no higher following the Paris attacks then why wheel out Special Forces onto British streets? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-i...
Haven't you answered your own question in bold above? You've managed to make and undo a point in one paragraph then the following. It's like express inconsistency as the thread goes on. We're talking about not cutting general police budgets 10-20% over years (most of which will not go towards CT work), not just over a few days where the threat may be increased. You're mixing time frames up to make a point. Why couldn't they have merely ring-fenced CT funding and increase it (as they apparently are by 30%).
You present this government as ones whom 'do the right thing' when it comes to austerity, but rely on them being irrationally populist when it comes to this specific stand of funding for a specific reason.
V8 Fettler said:
Regarding accuracy of opinion poles, see previous thread re: trust and reference to expert reports.
So are you saying the original one was wrong? You don't like specifics, do you? Keeping it vague leaves room for manoeuvre as it suits. Although you did write this early in the thread suggesting that because they were voted in they were trusted, implying the data was wrong. That was before you pretended you were talking about something else, mind. V8 Fettler said:
If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.
V8 Fettler said:
Humpty Dumpty? You're flailing.
Do you not understand the reference? It is hardly obscure.But you are right, insofar as trying to get you to admit your understanding of the democratic process in this country is seriously flawed: I am wasting my time. However, to let you post weird and wonderful interpretations, and also you protestations that people trust MPs might indicate that I support your PoV. And in any case, it is hardly mind-stretching.
I wonder, would you like me to post references?
V8 Fettler said:
Regarding accuracy of opinion poles, see previous thread re: trust and reference to expert reports.
It is possible that you now understand the relative importance of support over trust.
Trust and support are two completely different concepts and one can't be deemed more important than the other. It is possible that you now understand the relative importance of support over trust.
Opinion poles can be accurate if they are carried out appropriately.
I have always liked the fact that some people with life experience like ex forces and non academics could join the service by passing the pir.
My local force had a policy at one point excluding white males and they seem to want people with degrees.what it has lead to is much more women joining the service which to start with was a good thing but it has meant now they seem to have a lack of male officers and allot of very small 4'5 women some of whom sound never of joined the police and should probably be nursery nurses. I have known a number if situations were some physical presence and some muscle was needed and where a woman who is 20 with very little life experience has not managed the situation well. I remember a very difficult old lady harbouring her husband who was wanted for assault. She said to me she was scared of this lady and couldn't get into the house to find the wanted man.
There are situations were these women are a distinct advantage but there are times when you need a balance service with a good mixture of sexs and people with different skills for different walks of life. You don't need a degree in English lit to talk people from doing something silly.
My local force had a policy at one point excluding white males and they seem to want people with degrees.what it has lead to is much more women joining the service which to start with was a good thing but it has meant now they seem to have a lack of male officers and allot of very small 4'5 women some of whom sound never of joined the police and should probably be nursery nurses. I have known a number if situations were some physical presence and some muscle was needed and where a woman who is 20 with very little life experience has not managed the situation well. I remember a very difficult old lady harbouring her husband who was wanted for assault. She said to me she was scared of this lady and couldn't get into the house to find the wanted man.
There are situations were these women are a distinct advantage but there are times when you need a balance service with a good mixture of sexs and people with different skills for different walks of life. You don't need a degree in English lit to talk people from doing something silly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff