University degree required to join the police

[Devil2575]

Rovinghawk said:

Devil2575 said:

And?

That's hardly a revelation is it.

Gary Glitter is evidence that pop stars can be paedophiles. Does that make it likely that all of them are?

Nobody claimed all polls are flawed, just that they might be.

V8 Fettler did.

[Rovinghawk]

I beg to differ:

V8 Fettler said:

With regards to forecasting the results of elections, opinion polles are frequently flawed; poles held in the run-up to the last general election being a prime example.

[Devil2575]

Rovinghawk said:

I beg to differ:

V8 Fettler said:

With regards to forecasting the results of elections, opinion polles are frequently flawed; poles held in the run-up to the last general election being a prime example.

That's just one post. He has been asserting that the opinion pole results posted by La Liga are wrong for a number of pages now.

He's yet to provide any evidence other than "What I reckon.."

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

As previously, we've covered the trust thing ad infinitum in another thread, and yet for some bizarre reason you keep coming back to it.

I'm not coming back to trust, I am coming back to 'why get involved with two people discussing it without letting them know?' because you were talking about it then magically changed tact.

V8 Fettler said:

You've avoided my question re: your view on the sufficiency of funding for the police. A broad brush answer will be fine.

The police can operate on this level of funding. Whether or not there'll be delayed effects or things highlighted in the future is unknown.

It's a slightly more complex question than, "Why didn't you let people know you were talking about something else?", isn't it? A 'board brush' would be acceptable to a questions with so many variables, whereas asking someone a specific question about a post is a little easier to answer specifically.

V8 Fettler said:

Support or lack or support for Twitter or Facebook makes no meaningful difference to the lives of most people. Support or lack of support for the police can make a lot of difference to a lot of people's lives, hence Twitter/Facebook analogy is irrelevant to this thread.

It's as relevant as all your simplistic volume / numerical casual comparisons e.g. 'people have protested in the street for the NHS'.

V8 Fettler said:

You can't equate the foreign aid budget to the police budget

Exactly. Comparisons with any service or department's budget in a simplistic manner is flawed, as are making simplistic comparisons and links to funding and support.

V8 Fettler said:

If the perception of the terrorist threat remains at the same level as currently then the visibility of police/military will remain higher. If the perception of the terrorist threat drops then I would expect the Tories to return to cutting the police budget, but perhaps not in this current parliament.

After a relativity short period of time the visibility will be linked to risk and more rational deployments.

The terrorism threat increased to 'severe' prior to the 2010 cuts and sustained for sometime. I assume you won't make that casual link between funding and threat perception as it's the other way around there.

V8 Fettler said:

As I recall, you introduced the reference to the recent protection of police budgets to this thread, I've replied to that. What else was I supposed to consider?

Every other possibility instead of just one which allowed you to de-link your funding / support point because it no longer suited.

V8 Fettler said:

There may well be several reasons for the protection of police budgets, but logically the primary reason is the increased threat of terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34875077

"Logically" i.e. the one which worked for you. Senior officers have been raising a whole host of concerns for sometime and have presented the government with projections of what their forces would look like, in a general sense, with X, Y and Z reductions.

You have no idea of factors that made the decision and which weight was given to each one. You just pick the one that allows you to 'avoid' the contradiction you wrapped yourself in when it came to linking funding and support.

BBC said:

The prime minister's spokeswoman said the government would do "everything necessary to keep people safe".
She said the government had protected the counter-terror policing budget since 2010 and had announced further measures to counter terrorism, including extra resources for the security and intelligence agencies.

So when the terrorism threat and perception was increasing and sustaining over the initial cuts, how come it wasn't "dangerous" for the government to keep cutting and ring-fencing then, but not now?

When you tie yourself down to a simple and opportunistic cause and effect, it quickly becomes undone as there is often little consistency. Complex issues rarely have simple answers.

V8 Fettler said:

In the light of such comments (and similar) it would be an impossible situation for the Tories if cuts were continued and there was a terrorist outrage in the UK.

An unfounded assumption. See above.

V8 Fettler said:

The issue of police resource being used to deal with mental health incidents that could be dealt with in a measured way by other public sector organisations certainly needs to be addressed. It's yet another example of where insular public sector organisations in their bunkers fail to co-operate with each other at a high level.

It's not as simple as that as risk / protection overlaps between services and the lines become blurred. Sounds like 'private sector person has a magic simple fix to public sector problem PH style', to me.

Shame none of the private sector magicians from the NP&E forum and the like never filter into the public sector. They'd fix it in days.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

Surprised that you can claim to have knowledge of my level of understanding of British history 1800 to date; I admit that my interest is primarily regarding the military and also foreign policy, however I do admit to having some knowledge of domestic affairs during that period.

You've referred to changes in the electoral system over the years, none of which have altered the principle that the system is designed and structured on the basis that a vote is a vote for an individual, not a party.

People can signify their support for a candidate at a general election by voting for that candidate irrespective of levels of trust. They can vote for a candidate for whatever reason they choose; perhaps the candidate's name attracts their attention, perhaps he or she offers some fine facial topiary, perhaps he or she is a member of a particular political party. The reasoning behind the vote is irrelevant to the fact that it is the individual person who is elected to a particular seat; it is not the party that is elected to a particular seat. Again, this is demonstrated by the fact that a by-election is not required if an MP crosses the House to another party; that's because the system is designed and structured so that the MP is elected as an individual rather than as a representative of a party.

Personal attacks? I admit that I didn't realise you were so sensitive.

I can deduce your level of knowledge on a particular subject by your posts. Indeed, I bring up this post as a prime example. You suggest that the democratic system in this country was designed. I always enjoy an off-the-wall interpretation, but that is pure fantasy. There never was an overall design, or even intent.

As for voting for a person, I thought that one had been done to death. It is a farcical suggestion of course, and has been for years. You mentioned 200 years some time ago, as if there was some commonality between the democratic system in the early 19th C and now.

The system of government at the time was largely by pressure groups, sort of lobbyists, although that analogy should not be taken too far. There was a change after the 2nd reform act, the first being largely notification of change, although there was disagreement as to how.

Gilbert and Sullivan penned a warning in the late 19th of the change:

I often think it comical
How nature doest contrive
That every boy and every girl
Born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
or else a little conservative.

The precise wording might be a little different.

You will note the 'girl'.

Iolanthe was meant as a bit of irony, being predictive of the effects of party politics and possibly as a warning. And they were spot on, or at least Mr G was.

The vast majority of people cannot name their MP. I remember once when some paper tried to prove this wrong by listing four names, three made up and one the local MP, and asking people if they recognised any. Even then, the majority was only a bit over 50% if memory serves.

People vote according to party lines. This is patently obvious.

It is hardly irrelevant.

So in support for my 'claim' I refer to your own contentions that are plain wrong.

And the history of Humpty Dumpty has nothing to do with the literary reference.

Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 30th November 16:05

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

Devil2575 said:

An example of one flawed opinion pole is not evidence that all opinion poles are flawed.

No, but it's evidence that polls CAN be flawed.

Yes, they're an indication. But they're not countered by quotes like this, which are 'I don't like what it shows so I'll dismiss it with my opinion' (and a quote near to the original discussion where he clearly was talking about support and not trust...):

V8 Fettler said:

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

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

As previously, we've covered the trust thing ad infinitum in another thread, and yet for some bizarre reason you keep coming back to it.

I'm not coming back to trust, I am coming back to 'why get involved with two people discussing it without letting them know?' because you were talking about it then magically changed tact.

V8 Fettler said:

You've avoided my question re: your view on the sufficiency of funding for the police. A broad brush answer will be fine.

The police can operate on this level of funding. Whether or not there'll be delayed effects or things highlighted in the future is unknown.

It's a slightly more complex question than, "Why didn't you let people know you were talking about something else?", isn't it? A 'board brush' would be acceptable to a questions with so many variables, whereas asking someone a specific question about a post is a little easier to answer specifically.

V8 Fettler said:

Support or lack or support for Twitter or Facebook makes no meaningful difference to the lives of most people. Support or lack of support for the police can make a lot of difference to a lot of people's lives, hence Twitter/Facebook analogy is irrelevant to this thread.

It's as relevant as all your simplistic volume / numerical casual comparisons e.g. 'people have protested in the street for the NHS'.

V8 Fettler said:

You can't equate the foreign aid budget to the police budget

Exactly. Comparisons with any service or department's budget in a simplistic manner is flawed, as are making simplistic comparisons and links to funding and support.

V8 Fettler said:

If the perception of the terrorist threat remains at the same level as currently then the visibility of police/military will remain higher. If the perception of the terrorist threat drops then I would expect the Tories to return to cutting the police budget, but perhaps not in this current parliament.

After a relativity short period of time the visibility will be linked to risk and more rational deployments.

The terrorism threat increased to 'severe' prior to the 2010 cuts and sustained for sometime. I assume you won't make that casual link between funding and threat perception as it's the other way around there.

V8 Fettler said:

As I recall, you introduced the reference to the recent protection of police budgets to this thread, I've replied to that. What else was I supposed to consider?

Every other possibility instead of just one which allowed you to de-link your funding / support point because it no longer suited.

V8 Fettler said:

There may well be several reasons for the protection of police budgets, but logically the primary reason is the increased threat of terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34875077

"Logically" i.e. the one which worked for you. Senior officers have been raising a whole host of concerns for sometime and have presented the government with projections of what their forces would look like, in a general sense, with X, Y and Z reductions.

You have no idea of factors that made the decision and which weight was given to each one. You just pick the one that allows you to 'avoid' the contradiction you wrapped yourself in when it came to linking funding and support.

BBC said:

The prime minister's spokeswoman said the government would do "everything necessary to keep people safe".
She said the government had protected the counter-terror policing budget since 2010 and had announced further measures to counter terrorism, including extra resources for the security and intelligence agencies.

So when the terrorism threat and perception was increasing and sustaining over the initial cuts, how come it wasn't "dangerous" for the government to keep cutting and ring-fencing then, but not now?

When you tie yourself down to a simple and opportunistic cause and effect, it quickly becomes undone as there is often little consistency. Complex issues rarely have simple answers.

V8 Fettler said:

In the light of such comments (and similar) it would be an impossible situation for the Tories if cuts were continued and there was a terrorist outrage in the UK.

An unfounded assumption. See above.

V8 Fettler said:

The issue of police resource being used to deal with mental health incidents that could be dealt with in a measured way by other public sector organisations certainly needs to be addressed. It's yet another example of where insular public sector organisations in their bunkers fail to co-operate with each other at a high level.

It's not as simple as that as risk / protection overlaps between services and the lines become blurred. Sounds like 'private sector person has a magic simple fix to public sector problem PH style', to me.

Shame none of the private sector magicians from the NP&E forum and the like never filter into the public sector. They'd fix it in days.

It's good that we've finally finished with the trust thing. You still haven't told me if you require me to post pre-posts setting out the scope of my forthcoming posts.

The police may well be able to operate at the current level of expenditure, I'm sure they would be able to operate within a wide range of varying budgets, but do you believe that the current level of expenditure is sufficient to meet current requirements? The future always contains unknowns.

How are Facebook/Twitter relevant to public expenditure on essential services? The latter are vital to a civilised society, the former are generally a waste of space, virtual and otherwise.

With a board brush, there is certainly common ground between the police and the NHS, therefore comparisons can certainly be made; e.g. both organisations provide vital services to the British public (unlike foreign aid).

Police budgets have been cut substantially since 2010, a logical assumption is that the level of expenditure in 2010 was regarded as sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat in 2010.

You expect me consider every possibility with regards to the driving forces behind the recent protection of police budgets? That could take some time. Is there a fee involved?

I readily admit that I have no access to top level secret documents, but the decision making process behind the recent move to protect police budgets is hardly rocket science given recent events in Paris. You appear to be suggesting that mainstream policing is not essential in the fight against terrorism, I disagree, as does the senior police officer referred to in the link provided previously http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34875077

Tyically, the biggest issue with resolving complex issues is the lack of clear thinking and the inability to see the bigger picture.

Re: magicians, you're flailing again. We do not need magicians to fix the problems with the public sector, we need the key decision makers in the public sector to get out of their bunkers and provide workable solutions rather than remaining entrenched and insular as so many do.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

Surprised that you can claim to have knowledge of my level of understanding of British history 1800 to date; I admit that my interest is primarily regarding the military and also foreign policy, however I do admit to having some knowledge of domestic affairs during that period.

You've referred to changes in the electoral system over the years, none of which have altered the principle that the system is designed and structured on the basis that a vote is a vote for an individual, not a party.

People can signify their support for a candidate at a general election by voting for that candidate irrespective of levels of trust. They can vote for a candidate for whatever reason they choose; perhaps the candidate's name attracts their attention, perhaps he or she offers some fine facial topiary, perhaps he or she is a member of a particular political party. The reasoning behind the vote is irrelevant to the fact that it is the individual person who is elected to a particular seat; it is not the party that is elected to a particular seat. Again, this is demonstrated by the fact that a by-election is not required if an MP crosses the House to another party; that's because the system is designed and structured so that the MP is elected as an individual rather than as a representative of a party.

Personal attacks? I admit that I didn't realise you were so sensitive.

I can deduce your level of knowledge on a particular subject by your posts. Indeed, I bring up this post as a prime example. You suggest that the democratic system in this country was designed. I always enjoy an off-the-wall interpretation, but that is pure fantasy. There never was an overall design, or even intent.

As for voting for a person, I thought that one had been done to death. It is a farcical suggestion of course, and has been for years. You mentioned 200 years some time ago, as if there was some commonality between the democratic system in the early 19th C and now.

The system of government at the time was largely by pressure groups, sort of lobbyists, although that analogy should not be taken too far. There was a change after the 2nd reform act, the first being largely notification of change, although there was disagreement as to how.

Gilbert and Sullivan penned a warning in the late 19th of the change:

I often think it comical
How nature doest contrive
That every boy and every girl
Born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
or else a little conservative.

The precise wording might be a little different.

You will note the 'girl'.

Iolanthe was meant as a bit of irony, being predictive of the effects of party politics and possibly as a warning. And they were spot on, or at least Mr G was.

The vast majority of people cannot name their MP. I remember once when some paper tried to prove this wrong by listing four names, three made up and one the local MP, and asking people if they recognised any. Even then, the majority was only a bit over 50% if memory serves.

People vote according to party lines. This is patently obvious.

It is hardly irrelevant.

So in support for my 'claim' I refer to your own contentions that are plain wrong.

And the history of Humpty Dumpty has nothing to do with the literary reference.

Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 30th November 16:05

The design element is where the legislation creating change to the democratic process is designed to achieve an objective. As previously, how people vote on an individual basis is a matter for that individual, but that doesn't alter the design or the intention of the process.

I'm aware of the historical background to Humpty Dumpty, thanks.

Have you recovered from the personal attacks yet?

[V8 Fettler]

Devil2575 said:

Rovinghawk said:

I beg to differ:

V8 Fettler said:

With regards to forecasting the results of elections, opinion polles are frequently flawed; poles held in the run-up to the last general election being a prime example.

That's just one post. He has been asserting that the opinion pole results posted by La Liga are wrong for a number of pages now.

He's yet to provide any evidence other than "What I reckon.."

Some background info re: inaccuracy of poles http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/why-w... "shy Tories".

A proportion of the population will tell a pollster that they support higher public expenditure (= higher taxes) as they regard that as being seen doing the socially responsible thing; but when it comes to the ballot box they will vote for their wallet (= lower taxes = lower public expenditure).

[Devil2575]

V8 Fettler said:

Some background info re: inaccuracy of poles http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/why-w... "shy Tories".

A proportion of the population will tell a pollster that they support higher public expenditure (= higher taxes) as they regard that as being seen doing the socially responsible thing; but when it comes to the ballot box they will vote for their wallet (= lower taxes = lower public expenditure).

I am quite aware of why poles can be wrong, but that is not evidence that the one is question is wrong.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

The police may well be able to operate at the current level of expenditure, I'm sure they would be able to operate within a wide range of varying budgets, but do you believe that the current level of expenditure is sufficient to meet current requirements? The future always contains unknowns.

It depends what you want the police to do. The fundamentals of responding to emergencies and dealing with prisoners is met. My idea of policing is more limited and focused around crime and disorder as opposed to the 'softer' side. A smaller scope of activity allows for fewer officers.

V8 Fettler said:

Police budgets have been cut substantially since 2010, a logical assumption is that the level of expenditure in 2010 was regarded as sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat in 2010.

The point was the threat was raised just prior to the cuts and therefore the simplistic link between the threat being raised and is being the sole / primary driver of funding is flawed. If it were as strongly and solely correlated as you made out then it would have been then, too.

V8 Fettler said:

You expect me consider every possibility with regards to the driving forces behind the recent protection of police budgets? That could take some time. Is there a fee involved?

I'd expect you not to assign the decision to one factor for convenience. You need not consider every 'driving force', just that there is more and their weight is unknown and therefore making definitive conclusions is foolish.

V8 Fettler said:

I readily admit that I have no access to top level secret documents, but the decision making process behind the recent move to protect police budgets is hardly rocket science given recent events in Paris.

It's not rocket science to make a casual link when in reality you have no idea as to which factors added how much weight to the decision.

V8 Fettler said:

You appear to be suggesting that mainstream policing is not essential in the fight against terrorism, I disagree, as does the senior police officer referred to in the link provided previously http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34875077

There are no quotes from a senior officer in that link.

Of course we'll struggle to respond to a 'Paris style attack', regardless of numbers - the French have a very similar population size to us but nearly 100% more police officers. Nearly all of their police officers are armed. Fewer than 4% ours are (IIRC). So that means they have over 200,000 armed officers to respond, we have around 6,000. Variation in budgets of 20% aren't going to have any meaningful impact upon that.

Unarmed officers provide nothing more than cordons / closures during on-going armed incidents.

General budgets are nearly all spent on non-terrorism activity. The specific CT budgets have been, apparently, protected since 2010. There are a handful of constabularies that contain nearly all the CT risk for the UK. Managing terrorism isn't found during nearly all general policing activity, it's highly specific specialist work through specialist funding streams. If you were to ring-fence this work, then further cuts to the general policing budget would have next to no impact. Certainly not compared to the benefits of 'balancing the books' on its own.

V8 Fettler said:

Typically, the biggest issue with resolving complex issues is the lack of clear thinking and the inability to see the bigger picture.

I'm sure there are no managers in the public sector who have any strategic perspective and see 'the bigger picture'. Complex issues never have simplistic solutions.

If they did, they would be resolved.

V8 Fettler said:

We do not need magicians to fix the problems with the public sector

Despite the private-sector geniuses we have on PH and this country, not one of them has managed to find their way into the public sector to fix all the 'problems'. It's almost as if it's not as simple as they make out.

V8 Fettler said:

but when it comes to the ballot box they will vote for their wallet (= lower taxes = lower public expenditure).

Over 63% of the population didn't vote for the current government. They only had only 6% more than labour.

Don't mix-up the electoral system with the majority of the public. Just because a government is in power doesn't mean all its policies reflect the majority of the population.

[Devil2575]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

We do not need magicians to fix the problems with the public sector

Despite the private-sector geniuses we have on PH and this country, not one of them has managed to find their way into the public sector to fix all the 'problems'. It's almost as if it's not as simple as they make out.

Indeed. Despite what some people think the private sector isn't a panacea.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

The police may well be able to operate at the current level of expenditure, I'm sure they would be able to operate within a wide range of varying budgets, but do you believe that the current level of expenditure is sufficient to meet current requirements? The future always contains unknowns.

It depends what you want the police to do. The fundamentals of responding to emergencies and dealing with prisoners is met. My idea of policing is more limited and focused around crime and disorder as opposed to the 'softer' side. A smaller scope of activity allows for fewer officers.

V8 Fettler said:

Police budgets have been cut substantially since 2010, a logical assumption is that the level of expenditure in 2010 was regarded as sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat in 2010.

The point was the threat was raised just prior to the cuts and therefore the simplistic link between the threat being raised and is being the sole / primary driver of funding is flawed. If it were as strongly and solely correlated as you made out then it would have been then, too.

V8 Fettler said:

You expect me consider every possibility with regards to the driving forces behind the recent protection of police budgets? That could take some time. Is there a fee involved?

I'd expect you not to assign the decision to one factor for convenience. You need not consider every 'driving force', just that there is more and their weight is unknown and therefore making definitive conclusions is foolish.

V8 Fettler said:

I readily admit that I have no access to top level secret documents, but the decision making process behind the recent move to protect police budgets is hardly rocket science given recent events in Paris.

It's not rocket science to make a casual link when in reality you have no idea as to which factors added how much weight to the decision.

V8 Fettler said:

You appear to be suggesting that mainstream policing is not essential in the fight against terrorism, I disagree, as does the senior police officer referred to in the link provided previously http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34875077

There are no quotes from a senior officer in that link.

Of course we'll struggle to respond to a 'Paris style attack', regardless of numbers - the French have a very similar population size to us but nearly 100% more police officers. Nearly all of their police officers are armed. Fewer than 4% ours are (IIRC). So that means they have over 200,000 armed officers to respond, we have around 6,000. Variation in budgets of 20% aren't going to have any meaningful impact upon that.

Unarmed officers provide nothing more than cordons / closures during on-going armed incidents.

General budgets are nearly all spent on non-terrorism activity. The specific CT budgets have been, apparently, protected since 2010. There are a handful of constabularies that contain nearly all the CT risk for the UK. Managing terrorism isn't found during nearly all general policing activity, it's highly specific specialist work through specialist funding streams. If you were to ring-fence this work, then further cuts to the general policing budget would have next to no impact. Certainly not compared to the benefits of 'balancing the books' on its own.

V8 Fettler said:

Typically, the biggest issue with resolving complex issues is the lack of clear thinking and the inability to see the bigger picture.

I'm sure there are no managers in the public sector who have any strategic perspective and see 'the bigger picture'. Complex issues never have simplistic solutions.

If they did, they would be resolved.

V8 Fettler said:

We do not need magicians to fix the problems with the public sector

Despite the private-sector geniuses we have on PH and this country, not one of them has managed to find their way into the public sector to fix all the 'problems'. It's almost as if it's not as simple as they make out.

V8 Fettler said:

but when it comes to the ballot box they will vote for their wallet (= lower taxes = lower public expenditure).

Over 63% of the population didn't vote for the current government. They only had only 6% more than labour.

Don't mix-up the electoral system with the majority of the public. Just because a government is in power doesn't mean all its policies reflect the majority of the population.

The primary responsibility of the police should be keeping the peace. Someone else said that a few years ago.

The terrorist threat may well have increased to severe just before the cuts commenced in 2010, but perhaps the budget at that time was regarded as sufficient to deal with the revised threat despite the proposed cuts.

You can expect whatever you want, but that makes no difference to the fact that the current headline threat to the British public is terrorists. What other threats are currently perceived as being of the same magnitude? Our wonderful MPs are about to vote on bombing another country primarily to deal with a perceived terrorist threat and - in the view of Cameron - make the UK a safer place.

It's not rocket science to identify the greatest current perceived threat to the British public.

The reference to the comments made by a senior officer in the leaked letter appear in other news media as well as the BBC, so unlikely to be a BBC "mistake". It's a pity that the (redacted) letter isn't in the public domain.

You're conveniently forgetting the vital counter terrorism intelligence gathering role performed by unarmed officers, referred to by the Met here http://www.met.police.uk/pcso/PCSO_ct.htm

Again, you're confusing "threat" with "perceived threat", Cameron and co are desperate to be seen to be dealing with the perceived threat. It remains to be seen whether the government's actions also deal with the threat in reality.

It's not a case of changing individual managers in the public sector, it's the culture that needs changing; increased accountability and speedier resolution of issues would be a good start.

[V8 Fettler]

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Some background info re: inaccuracy of poles http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/why-w... "shy Tories".

A proportion of the population will tell a pollster that they support higher public expenditure (= higher taxes) as they regard that as being seen doing the socially responsible thing; but when it comes to the ballot box they will vote for their wallet (= lower taxes = lower public expenditure).

I am quite aware of why poles can be wrong, but that is not evidence that the one is question is wrong.

The link (and other similar links) demonstrates why po1es shouldn't be trusted; responses to pollsters cannot be regarded as reliable by default, although the pol1sters might get lucky once or twice.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

The primary responsibility of the police should be keeping the peace. Someone else said that a few years ago.

Which is a generalised way of saying 'responding to emergencies and dealing with prisoners'.

V8 Fettler said:

The terrorist threat may well have increased to severe just before the cuts commenced in 2010, but perhaps the budget at that time was regarded as sufficient to deal with the revised threat despite the proposed cuts.

And perhaps it's regarded as sufficient to deal with the revised threat now, or at least the ring-fencing has been / would be.

V8 Fettler said:

You can expect whatever you want, but that makes no difference to the fact that the current headline threat to the British public is terrorists. What other threats are currently perceived as being of the same magnitude? Our wonderful MPs are about to vote on bombing another country primarily to deal with a perceived terrorist threat and - in the view of Cameron - make the UK a safer place.

And it makes no difference to the fact you have no idea as to the weight assigned to each aspect that created the financial decision. You can build a case for whatever you want as strongly as possible, but the reality is you have no real idea and are speculating for convenience.

You not recognising this suggests you lack the ability to identify knowns and unknowns. Identifying information voids is a product of quality thinking.

V8 Fettler said:

It's not rocket science to identify the greatest current perceived threat to the British public.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it has any link, or a strong link, to the decision not to cut funding. You are making a case that it does because it suits you to break the link between funding and support that was convenient prior to the police funding being sustained.

V8 Fettler said:

You're conveniently forgetting the vital counter terrorism intelligence gathering role performed by unarmed officers, referred to by the Met here http://www.met.police.uk/pcso/PCSO_ct.htm

A specific Met (or nearly all) role (there are other areas of the country) which the government ring-fenced along with other CT finding since 2010.

V8 Fettler said:

It's not a case of changing individual managers in the public sector, it's the culture that needs changing; increased accountability and speedier resolution of issues would be a good start.

People go to prison, fires get put out, bins get collected, people get operations. I don't think it's that bad, especially given how many cuts they've face.

I wonder how the private sector would fare if faced with such decreased revenue. The fact so many share prices are constantly in a down-trend suggest they have plenty to focus upon in their own area before fixing anything else. It's the culture that needs changing; increased accountability and speedier resolution of issues would be a good start.

V8 Fettler said:

The link (and other similar links) demonstrates why po1es shouldn't be trusted; responses to pollsters cannot be regarded as reliable by default, although the pol1sters might get lucky once or twice.

Nor can they be regarded as unreliable by default. Each one needs examining individually.

Am I missing something with the 'pole' vs 'poll' usage in this thread?

[Devil2575]

V8 Fettler said:

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Some background info re: inaccuracy of poles http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/why-w... "shy Tories".

A proportion of the population will tell a pollster that they support higher public expenditure (= higher taxes) as they regard that as being seen doing the socially responsible thing; but when it comes to the ballot box they will vote for their wallet (= lower taxes = lower public expenditure).

I am quite aware of why poles can be wrong, but that is not evidence that the one is question is wrong.

The link (and other similar links) demonstrates why po1es shouldn't be trusted; responses to pollsters cannot be regarded as reliable by default, although the pol1sters might get lucky once or twice.

It all depends on how the pole is conducted. There is no reason to suggest that all poles are wrong or that if they are right it is just down to luck.

The exit pole on election day was pretty much spot on for example.

[Derek Smith]

Devil2575 said:

It all depends on how the pole is conducted. There is no reason to suggest that all poles are wrong or that if they are right it is just down to luck.

The exit pole on election day was pretty much spot on for example.

The exit polls were accurate almost from the start evidently. Your description of spot on is, it seems, spot on.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

The primary responsibility of the police should be keeping the peace. Someone else said that a few years ago.

Which is a generalised way of saying 'responding to emergencies and dealing with prisoners'.

V8 Fettler said:

The terrorist threat may well have increased to severe just before the cuts commenced in 2010, but perhaps the budget at that time was regarded as sufficient to deal with the revised threat despite the proposed cuts.

And perhaps it's regarded as sufficient to deal with the revised threat now, or at least the ring-fencing has been / would be.

V8 Fettler said:

You can expect whatever you want, but that makes no difference to the fact that the current headline threat to the British public is terrorists. What other threats are currently perceived as being of the same magnitude? Our wonderful MPs are about to vote on bombing another country primarily to deal with a perceived terrorist threat and - in the view of Cameron - make the UK a safer place.

And it makes no difference to the fact you have no idea as to the weight assigned to each aspect that created the financial decision. You can build a case for whatever you want as strongly as possible, but the reality is you have no real idea and are speculating for convenience.

You not recognising this suggests you lack the ability to identify knowns and unknowns. Identifying information voids is a product of quality thinking.

V8 Fettler said:

It's not rocket science to identify the greatest current perceived threat to the British public.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it has any link, or a strong link, to the decision not to cut funding. You are making a case that it does because it suits you to break the link between funding and support that was convenient prior to the police funding being sustained.

V8 Fettler said:

You're conveniently forgetting the vital counter terrorism intelligence gathering role performed by unarmed officers, referred to by the Met here http://www.met.police.uk/pcso/PCSO_ct.htm

A specific Met (or nearly all) role (there are other areas of the country) which the government ring-fenced along with other CT finding since 2010.

V8 Fettler said:

It's not a case of changing individual managers in the public sector, it's the culture that needs changing; increased accountability and speedier resolution of issues would be a good start.

People go to prison, fires get put out, bins get collected, people get operations. I don't think it's that bad, especially given how many cuts they've face.

I wonder how the private sector would fare if faced with such decreased revenue. The fact so many share prices are constantly in a down-trend suggest they have plenty to focus upon in their own area before fixing anything else. It's the culture that needs changing; increased accountability and speedier resolution of issues would be a good start.

V8 Fettler said:

The link (and other similar links) demonstrates why po1es shouldn't be trusted; responses to pollsters cannot be regarded as reliable by default, although the pol1sters might get lucky once or twice.

Nor can they be regarded as unreliable by default. Each one needs examining individually.

Am I missing something with the 'pole' vs 'poll' usage in this thread?

Keeping the peace is primarily about deterrence.

Only time will tell if the current budget is adequate. although I doubt if the decision makers who set the budget have anything other than a broad brush view of the threat.

Setting budgets to deal with issues where unknowns exist always involves speculation, it's that crystal ball again.

What other key factors are there driving the recent protection of police budgets? Rising reported crime rate? Not as far as I am aware. Increased civil unrest? I don't think so. Meaningful detection of poor driving? No, of course not.

My frequent reference to broad brush indicates recognition of the presence of unknowns, but informed comment is still possible without full knowledge, or is that verboten?

The extent of the government support for the police changed following the attacks in Paris, how could it be otherwise? Any other driving factors pale into insignificance.

Are you saying that if a particular CT budget hasn't been set for a PCSO to gather CT intelligence reactively then that PCSO wouldn't gather CT intelligence if the opportunity arose? Perhaps as a result of an unplanned, informal conversation with a local resident? That would be a nonsensical situation and indicates the importance of taking a broad brush approach.

The private sector generally deals with falling expenditure by instigating change. Whole industries are decimated e.g. the UK steel industry. Change or fail.

Share prices are not a good measure of the value or efficiency of a particular private sector organisation, profitability generally is.

Provided that there is competition, the majority of the organisations within the private sector which are not accountable for efficiency and which are incapable of speedily resolving issues will fail. One of the benefits of free market capitalism.

Pole vs poll vs po1l is a mystery.

[V8 Fettler]

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Some background info re: inaccuracy of poles http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/why-w... "shy Tories".

A proportion of the population will tell a pollster that they support higher public expenditure (= higher taxes) as they regard that as being seen doing the socially responsible thing; but when it comes to the ballot box they will vote for their wallet (= lower taxes = lower public expenditure).

I am quite aware of why poles can be wrong, but that is not evidence that the one is question is wrong.

The link (and other similar links) demonstrates why po1es shouldn't be trusted; responses to pollsters cannot be regarded as reliable by default, although the pol1sters might get lucky once or twice.

It all depends on how the pole is conducted. There is no reason to suggest that all poles are wrong or that if they are right it is just down to luck.

The exit pole on election day was pretty much spot on for example.

P0lls are generally sufficiently inaccurate to be generally regarded as generally untrustworthy. Did someone say broad brush?

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

What other key factors are there driving the recent protection of police budgets? Rising reported crime rate? Not as far as I am aware. Increased civil unrest? I don't think so. Meaningful detection of poor driving? No, of course not.

I'd speculate a couple of things, all of which overlap:

1) The objections growing warnings from Chief Officers that they would no longer be able to operate in a manner as to what the public expect. Here's a public example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11276...

2) The threshold being reached where the police / public relationship would fundamentally change due to fundamental changes in policing capability.

3) The plans the Chief Officers submitted showing that each force would 'look like' given X, Y and Z reductions in funding.

4) The lack of will and ability within the government to genuinely reform and limit the scope of policing in a manner which would allow further funding cuts.

I know governments can be reactionary, but terrorism alone smacks of being far too short-termist. I'd speculate the concerns the Home Office have had have been raised well before Paris.

There are still lots of changes which are being made to meet the previous rounds of cuts, so it's not like their effect has suddenly stopped.

There are some positives and I wrote about this internally recently, talking of the skills, experience and mindset of having to scrutinise the necessity of each function and what each person / department does. It's important to keep looking at things from that point of view even when funding is sustained and eventually (?) when it increases once more.

V8 Fettler said:

The extent of the government support for the police changed following the attacks in Paris, how could it be otherwise? Any other driving factors pale into insignificance.

It no doubt had some influence, but I would be cautious about assigning too much weight.

V8 Fettler said:

Are you saying that if a particular CT budget hasn't been set for a PCSO to gather CT intelligence reactively then that PCSO wouldn't gather CT intelligence if the opportunity arose? Perhaps as a result of an unplanned, informal conversation with a local resident? That would be a nonsensical situation and indicates the importance of taking a broad brush approach.

I am saying that the role you linked was a specific CT one (just in the Met, I expect) which would theoretically be covered by ring-fencing of the CT budget. These will be PCSOs who will have the community links and relationships to Mosques and the like who form the relationships to be told things. We like the idea that overt officers gather intelligence, but the reality is the quality links are formed at a somewhat higher, less overt level.

Of course general officers, both Police and PCSOs can feed into the intelligence cycle even though they aren't specially tasked with CT. The point is this will occur so infrequently that the general policing activity covered under the general budget barely contributes to CT work.

V8 Fettler said:

Share prices are not a good measure of the value or efficiency of a particular private sector organisation, profitability generally is.

Share price is the market pricing in future expectation as well as current value. Naturally there are volatile times when everything goes down. This year, for example, was the volatility over China. This is the reason I said 'constantly in a down-trend', which is longer-term and a more reliable indication.

V8 Fettler said:

Provided that there is competition, the majority of the organisations within the private sector which are not accountable for efficiency and which are incapable of speedily resolving issues will fail. One of the benefits of free market capitalism.

My experience of the private sector (I have business interests, too) is that it is just as flawed as the public when comparing like-for-like scales. Collective human behaviour is at the heart of it. That's the main point rather than getting bogged down in share price etc.