University degree required to join the police
Discussion
La Liga said:
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. If the gathering of CT intelligence is of little relevance to the role of a Met PCSO then why make specific mention of it in the job description? Additionally, it's hardly as if the terrorist threat finishes at the M25.
CT intelligence should be gathered at all levels, neglecting the opportunity to gather intelligence at a low level risks missing the lone maniac.
Share values may well be priced at future expectations, but that's not the same as value and efficiency.
Private sector organisations certainly suffer inefficiencies and lose sight of key objectives; generally, the end result is that said organisation will then fail. This generally doesn't happen in the public sector, where an inefficient organisation that has lost sight of key objectives can continue to operate indefinitely.
V8 Fettler said:
If the gathering of CT intelligence is of little relevance to the role of a Met PCSO then why make specific mention of it in the job description? Additionally, it's hardly as if the terrorist threat finishes at the M25.
CT intelligence should be gathered at all levels, neglecting the opportunity to gather intelligence at a low level risks missing the lone maniac.
The general PCSO or the CT ones? The general ones will have that as part of their role profile as well as anyone who works for the police. Everyone is a part of the respective CT strategies. The point is they'll rarely contribute to it in a general sense. CT intelligence should be gathered at all levels, neglecting the opportunity to gather intelligence at a low level risks missing the lone maniac.
V8 Fettler said:
Private sector organisations certainly suffer inefficiencies and lose sight of key objectives; generally, the end result is that said organisation will then fail. This generally doesn't happen in the public sector, where an inefficient organisation that has lost sight of key objectives can continue to operate indefinitely.
That is a fundamental difference and true, but equally, as we've seen with the likes of VW, investors have been shafted but the company is not going to go out of business. I think public sector is generally more 'ham strung' in rules and regulation - mostly state imposed - allowing the organisations to be a lot less nimble than they could be. The bigger ones like the NHS, police and education (not necessarily 'big just in terms of funding') are political footballs. There must be reform over the 5 year cycle to show something is being done. It doesn't work well for long-term planning and stability.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
If the gathering of CT intelligence is of little relevance to the role of a Met PCSO then why make specific mention of it in the job description? Additionally, it's hardly as if the terrorist threat finishes at the M25.
CT intelligence should be gathered at all levels, neglecting the opportunity to gather intelligence at a low level risks missing the lone maniac.
The general PCSO or the CT ones? The general ones will have that as part of their role profile as well as anyone who works for the police. Everyone is a part of the respective CT strategies. The point is they'll rarely contribute to it in a general sense. CT intelligence should be gathered at all levels, neglecting the opportunity to gather intelligence at a low level risks missing the lone maniac.
V8 Fettler said:
Private sector organisations certainly suffer inefficiencies and lose sight of key objectives; generally, the end result is that said organisation will then fail. This generally doesn't happen in the public sector, where an inefficient organisation that has lost sight of key objectives can continue to operate indefinitely.
That is a fundamental difference and true, but equally, as we've seen with the likes of VW, investors have been shafted but the company is not going to go out of business. I think public sector is generally more 'ham strung' in rules and regulation - mostly state imposed - allowing the organisations to be a lot less nimble than they could be. The bigger ones like the NHS, police and education (not necessarily 'big just in terms of funding') are political footballs. There must be reform over the 5 year cycle to show something is being done. It doesn't work well for long-term planning and stability.
Is it not possible that uniformed police officers contribute to generally deterring terrorism by providing a general visible presence? Probably difficult to measure, perhaps could only be evaluated if the terrorist's thought processes were understood.
The future of VW with regards to cheating the emission regs probably depends on the size of future compensation payouts in the US, particularly if there is a successful compensation claim relating to health issues. As always, there are unknowns, e.g. the level of liability cover carried by VW. I suspect that the German government would bail out VW if things became desperate, I would prefer to see VW go to the wall.
You are correct re: short term planning for public sector, driven by the politicos.
La Liga said:
I think public sector is generally more 'ham strung' in rules and regulation - mostly state imposed - allowing the organisations to be a lot less nimble than they could be. The bigger ones like the NHS, police and education (not necessarily 'big just in terms of funding') are political footballs. There must be reform over the 5 year cycle to show something is being done. It doesn't work well for long-term planning and stability.
On top of that, there has been no no joint talks as to problems, requirements and needs, as these would, one assumes, contradict the professed beliefs of the government. One minute the police are planning for the promised massive cuts and the next they are told it was all a joke. Not conducive to efficiency.
The need is for reform of the police but this is much more difficult and gives few dramatic headlines. Also the integration with other emergency services, especially mental health issues, is an essential but if the police are told not to deal with matters outside their expertise, then the government will have to make up the slack elsewhere. But that would take planning and investment, not something the government are keen to bother with.
It's micromanaging. There was a recent bit in the news about Gove making notes on envelopes. The NHS is the major sufferer but the police are up there.
Another problem is the lack of consultation. I was the only identification officer interviewed by the committee rewriting the Codes of Practice on identification procedures, full details in my new book of course. One of the paragraphs was poorly written but no one had noticed. As soon as the ID officers got the new codes, on the Thursday before they went live on Monday - and that was Easter Monday there were emails flying around us as to how we should 'interpret' it.
The Home Office rewrote it as such after a few months, so ID officer who had followed the new regs could have been challenged.
Inept comes to mind, as does conceit. How can a committee, run by a university professor, not talk/interview police officers whose role it was? The only reason I was asked was because my ACC brought up something I'd written for Police Review. The committee had submitted its final report before talking with me.
That's the major problem with the police, and probably for others in public sectors that are used by politicians to further their ambitions. They have no idea but make day-to-day decisions.
Pathetic.
I remember doing some work for a senior officer (ACPO rank) and his peer group were senior management in a range of industries. He said they always used to be amazed as the bureaucratic and long-winded means in which the police had to operate at that level. Some could be down to how things are done, but he said that the Home Office cause them no end of headaches with interfering.
I think the government could have 'got away with' with reductions to the general budget whilst focusing on the fact they'd ring-fence the CT budget. It's ultimately unknown and perhaps a less ruthless Spending Review overall allowed them the 'luxury' of not further central cuts and brining forward future plans. The Conservatives have traditionally been seen as the party of law and order so perhaps that played a part in anticipation for the next election; 'we stopped the coalition cuts because a majority Conservative government believes in its police', etc, etc. Who knows?
V8 Fettler said:
If CT is part of the job profile then a budget or part of a budget should be allocated for that purpose, but it will be broad brush. I assume that it's unlikely that a bean counter will draw up a pie chart precisely defining the proportional cost of CT where a police officer is generally involved with other duties.
Is it not possible that uniformed police officers contribute to generally deterring terrorism by providing a general visible presence? Probably difficult to measure, perhaps could only be evaluated if the terrorist's thought processes were understood.
CT is very much 'prevention is better than the cure', although reassurance can be achieved by visibility. I'd suggest they could achieve nearly all the CT effectiveness through ring-fencing the CT budgets. Is it not possible that uniformed police officers contribute to generally deterring terrorism by providing a general visible presence? Probably difficult to measure, perhaps could only be evaluated if the terrorist's thought processes were understood.
I think the government could have 'got away with' with reductions to the general budget whilst focusing on the fact they'd ring-fence the CT budget. It's ultimately unknown and perhaps a less ruthless Spending Review overall allowed them the 'luxury' of not further central cuts and brining forward future plans. The Conservatives have traditionally been seen as the party of law and order so perhaps that played a part in anticipation for the next election; 'we stopped the coalition cuts because a majority Conservative government believes in its police', etc, etc. Who knows?
Eclassy said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34805856
I think it is a fantastic idea. It wont completely stop morons and illiterates from joining but it will weed out a lot of them.
A few examples of how a degree will help:
In university you are exposed to interacting and working with people from all backgrounds so officers with degrees are more likely to be prejudiced.
Officers will be able to read and write. If the officer who obtained a warrant to raid my house could read and maybe do a little bit of critical thinking, he would have realised it was the wrong place. When I was attacked in my much publicised video and went to give a statement, the officer's writing was not only terrible, it was littered with spelling mistakes. I remember telling him the assailant 'alighted' from his vehicle and he asked me what that meant.
Officers with a degree will also be able to better interprete the law and as such do no more than they are empowered to do. This should lead to a reduction in unlawfull arrests.
So does that mean you would not be eligible?I think it is a fantastic idea. It wont completely stop morons and illiterates from joining but it will weed out a lot of them.
A few examples of how a degree will help:
In university you are exposed to interacting and working with people from all backgrounds so officers with degrees are more likely to be prejudiced.
Officers will be able to read and write. If the officer who obtained a warrant to raid my house could read and maybe do a little bit of critical thinking, he would have realised it was the wrong place. When I was attacked in my much publicised video and went to give a statement, the officer's writing was not only terrible, it was littered with spelling mistakes. I remember telling him the assailant 'alighted' from his vehicle and he asked me what that meant.
Officers with a degree will also be able to better interprete the law and as such do no more than they are empowered to do. This should lead to a reduction in unlawfull arrests.
When criticising spelling, it pays to check your own
La Liga said:
I remember doing some work for a senior officer (ACPO rank) and his peer group were senior management in a range of industries. He said they always used to be amazed as the bureaucratic and long-winded means in which the police had to operate at that level. Some could be down to how things are done, but he said that the Home Office cause them no end of headaches with interfering.
I think the government could have 'got away with' with reductions to the general budget whilst focusing on the fact they'd ring-fence the CT budget. It's ultimately unknown and perhaps a less ruthless Spending Review overall allowed them the 'luxury' of not further central cuts and brining forward future plans. The Conservatives have traditionally been seen as the party of law and order so perhaps that played a part in anticipation for the next election; 'we stopped the coalition cuts because a majority Conservative government believes in its police', etc, etc. Who knows?
Which would leave the Tories open to potentially fatal criticism from the public and press if there was subsequently a terrorist outrage in the UK where general police budgets were still being cut, despite ring fencing CT expenditure. The Tories have closed off that possibility.V8 Fettler said:
If CT is part of the job profile then a budget or part of a budget should be allocated for that purpose, but it will be broad brush. I assume that it's unlikely that a bean counter will draw up a pie chart precisely defining the proportional cost of CT where a police officer is generally involved with other duties.
Is it not possible that uniformed police officers contribute to generally deterring terrorism by providing a general visible presence? Probably difficult to measure, perhaps could only be evaluated if the terrorist's thought processes were understood.
CT is very much 'prevention is better than the cure', although reassurance can be achieved by visibility. I'd suggest they could achieve nearly all the CT effectiveness through ring-fencing the CT budgets. Is it not possible that uniformed police officers contribute to generally deterring terrorism by providing a general visible presence? Probably difficult to measure, perhaps could only be evaluated if the terrorist's thought processes were understood.
I think the government could have 'got away with' with reductions to the general budget whilst focusing on the fact they'd ring-fence the CT budget. It's ultimately unknown and perhaps a less ruthless Spending Review overall allowed them the 'luxury' of not further central cuts and brining forward future plans. The Conservatives have traditionally been seen as the party of law and order so perhaps that played a part in anticipation for the next election; 'we stopped the coalition cuts because a majority Conservative government believes in its police', etc, etc. Who knows?
I speculate (again?) that the effectiveness of the various means to deter the current batch of terrorists has not been fully evaluated, particularly lone maniacs using weapons other than rifles and high explosives.
Elroy Blue said:
I wonder if the Officers at the tube station yesterday had University Degrees. I'm sure they would have been very handy.
Well done to the cops for doing proper police work. They sure didn't need a degree neither did these guys. They didn't even enjoy the luxury of a police academy.https://youtu.be/TT9XOUuGgbw
You must be stuck in an age where all you needed was all brawn and no brain to be a copper. Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives.
Does a teacher need a degree to teach 6 year olds to read and write?
Does a nurse need a degree to use a defibrillator on a patient?
Do students on sport scholarships need a degree to play in the NBA?
Very few roles actually need a degree.
A degree is good for many other reasons. It looks like the days where the least academically competent people go into policing as a last resort may soon be over.
Eclassy said:
Well done to the cops for doing proper police work. They sure didn't need a degree neither did these guys. They didn't even enjoy the luxury of a police academy.
https://youtu.be/TT9XOUuGgbw
You must be stuck in an age where all you needed was all brawn and no brain to be a copper. Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives.
Does a teacher need a degree to teach 6 year olds to read and write?
Does a nurse need a degree to use a defibrillator on a patient?
Do students on sport scholarships need a degree to play in the NBA?
Very few roles actually need a degree.
A degree is good for many other reasons. It looks like the days where the least academically competent people go into policing as a last resort may soon be over.
Do you actually have any idea about any of the things you talk about, or do you just spout out anything you think might sound intelligent?https://youtu.be/TT9XOUuGgbw
You must be stuck in an age where all you needed was all brawn and no brain to be a copper. Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives.
Does a teacher need a degree to teach 6 year olds to read and write?
Does a nurse need a degree to use a defibrillator on a patient?
Do students on sport scholarships need a degree to play in the NBA?
Very few roles actually need a degree.
A degree is good for many other reasons. It looks like the days where the least academically competent people go into policing as a last resort may soon be over.
It's nice of Eclassy to quote a serving officer and tell him, 'Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives'.
Confidence in a 'story' based on limited information is based upon how coherent the 'story' is, not necessarily how accurate it is.
The Lone Wolf is probably the biggest threat and no doubt concerns the intelligence services the most. It looks like saw one yesterday, albeit a low-level one.
V8 Fettler said:
Which would leave the Tories open to potentially fatal criticism from the public and press if there was subsequently a terrorist outrage in the UK where general police budgets were still being cut, despite ring fencing CT expenditure. The Tories have closed off that possibility.
Maybe, maybe not. Predicting the future and reaction like that, and assigning it such weight isn't a justified thing to do - just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it's true. Confidence in a 'story' based on limited information is based upon how coherent the 'story' is, not necessarily how accurate it is.
V8 Fettler said:
I speculate (again?) that the effectiveness of the various means to deter the current batch of terrorists has not been fully evaluated, particularly lone maniacs using weapons other than rifles and high explosives.
Possibly so. It's an evolving world and the feedback from the 'Prevent' aspect of the CT strategy will have various cycles and delays. The Lone Wolf is probably the biggest threat and no doubt concerns the intelligence services the most. It looks like saw one yesterday, albeit a low-level one.
Eclassy said:
Well done to the cops for doing proper police work. They sure didn't need a degree neither did these guys. They didn't even enjoy the luxury of a police academy.
https://youtu.be/TT9XOUuGgbw
You must be stuck in an age where all you needed was all brawn and no brain to be a copper. Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives.
Does a teacher need a degree to teach 6 year olds to read and write?
Does a nurse need a degree to use a defibrillator on a patient?
Do students on sport scholarships need a degree to play in the NBA?
Very few roles actually need a degree.
A degree is good for many other reasons. It looks like the days where the least academically competent people go into policing as a last resort may soon be over.
I think you need to borrow some of Cariniaman's medication. https://youtu.be/TT9XOUuGgbw
You must be stuck in an age where all you needed was all brawn and no brain to be a copper. Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives.
Does a teacher need a degree to teach 6 year olds to read and write?
Does a nurse need a degree to use a defibrillator on a patient?
Do students on sport scholarships need a degree to play in the NBA?
Very few roles actually need a degree.
A degree is good for many other reasons. It looks like the days where the least academically competent people go into policing as a last resort may soon be over.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Eclassy said:
Well done to the cops for doing proper police work. They sure didn't need a degree neither did these guys. They didn't even enjoy the luxury of a police academy.
https://youtu.be/TT9XOUuGgbw
You must be stuck in an age where all you needed was all brawn and no brain to be a copper. Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives.
Does a teacher need a degree to teach 6 year olds to read and write?
Does a nurse need a degree to use a defibrillator on a patient?
Do students on sport scholarships need a degree to play in the NBA?
Very few roles actually need a degree.
A degree is good for many other reasons. It looks like the days where the least academically competent people go into policing as a last resort may soon be over.
Do you actually have any idea about any of the things you talk about, or do you just spout out anything you think might sound intelligent?https://youtu.be/TT9XOUuGgbw
You must be stuck in an age where all you needed was all brawn and no brain to be a copper. Police work involves a lot more than arresting terrorists with knives.
Does a teacher need a degree to teach 6 year olds to read and write?
Does a nurse need a degree to use a defibrillator on a patient?
Do students on sport scholarships need a degree to play in the NBA?
Very few roles actually need a degree.
A degree is good for many other reasons. It looks like the days where the least academically competent people go into policing as a last resort may soon be over.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Which would leave the Tories open to potentially fatal criticism from the public and press if there was subsequently a terrorist outrage in the UK where general police budgets were still being cut, despite ring fencing CT expenditure. The Tories have closed off that possibility.
Maybe, maybe not. Predicting the future and reaction like that, and assigning it such weight isn't a justified thing to do - just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it's true. Confidence in a 'story' based on limited information is based upon how coherent the 'story' is, not necessarily how accurate it is.
V8 Fettler said:
I speculate (again?) that the effectiveness of the various means to deter the current batch of terrorists has not been fully evaluated, particularly lone maniacs using weapons other than rifles and high explosives.
Possibly so. It's an evolving world and the feedback from the 'Prevent' aspect of the CT strategy will have various cycles and delays. The Lone Wolf is probably the biggest threat and no doubt concerns the intelligence services the most. It looks like saw one yesterday, albeit a low-level one.
It can be difficult - but not impossible - for a rational person to predict and control the actions of an irrational person.
Dinosaurs are always resistant to change. Your hope is that the police service remains stuck in the dark ages of jobs for chums, unchecked nepotism and a job for life despite a lack of ability. Unfortunately for you lot things are changing.
The fire service reformed, nursing was reformed, teaching was reformed and so will the police service. We are already seeing some reforms in the service. When I came to this country (London) I never ever saw an officer who was an ethnic minority. Just the usual suspects policing a city with 40% minority population. Now you see different faces even if most of them are PCSOs, its still an improvement.
The days of 'Sarge, mi lad is 6'5 but don't got any GCSEs, any chance he can help out at the custody desk' are gone.
The fire service reformed, nursing was reformed, teaching was reformed and so will the police service. We are already seeing some reforms in the service. When I came to this country (London) I never ever saw an officer who was an ethnic minority. Just the usual suspects policing a city with 40% minority population. Now you see different faces even if most of them are PCSOs, its still an improvement.
The days of 'Sarge, mi lad is 6'5 but don't got any GCSEs, any chance he can help out at the custody desk' are gone.
Eclassy said:
Dinosaurs are always resistant to change. Your hope is that the police service remains stuck in the dark ages of jobs for chums, unchecked nepotism and a job for life despite a lack of ability. Unfortunately for you lot things are changing.
The fire service reformed, nursing was reformed, teaching was reformed and so will the police service.
The dinosaurs were killed off by sudden and global change.The fire service reformed, nursing was reformed, teaching was reformed and so will the police service.
ACPO-rank officers have been disciplined for nepotism in the last few years; what reform is still needed there?
There are already ways of managing and ultimately getting rid of poor performers from within the service. What further reform is necessary?
I don't know a lot about the fire service but I do know they are complaining of too few resources to deal adequately with the current flooding in Cumbria.
We are short of thousands of nurses that hospitals can't afford to train or employ. "Reform" of nurse training to degree level to reflect the increasing complexity of a nurse's workload has meant the increased and more formal use of auxiliary staff to cover the same workload. Nurses are retiring or emigrating for better conditions and not being replaced (similar with other medical professions.)
Reform for the police under this government has so far (IMO) simply meant budget cuts. Nothing has been made simpler/faster/more just for police or the public. The public are just seeing fewer police, and individual officers have less time to spend with any one member of the public.
What further specific cuts - sorry, reforms - do you think are required?
Eclassy said:
Dinosaurs are always resistant to change. Your hope is that the police service remains stuck in the dark ages of jobs for chums, unchecked nepotism and a job for life despite a lack of ability. Unfortunately for you lot things are changing.
The fire service reformed, nursing was reformed, teaching was reformed and so will the police service. We are already seeing some reforms in the service. When I came to this country (London) I never ever saw an officer who was an ethnic minority. Just the usual suspects policing a city with 40% minority population. Now you see different faces even if most of them are PCSOs, its still an improvement.
The days of 'Sarge, mi lad is 6'5 but don't got any GCSEs, any chance he can help out at the custody desk' are gone.
Police officers, the ones who do the work, in general want change. They want reform in fact. The problem is the dinosaurs are there in the home office and government. The fire service reformed, nursing was reformed, teaching was reformed and so will the police service. We are already seeing some reforms in the service. When I came to this country (London) I never ever saw an officer who was an ethnic minority. Just the usual suspects policing a city with 40% minority population. Now you see different faces even if most of them are PCSOs, its still an improvement.
The days of 'Sarge, mi lad is 6'5 but don't got any GCSEs, any chance he can help out at the custody desk' are gone.
As for minorities (although, of course, you mean minorities that can be identified visually): I don't know when you came to London, but I policed there in the 70s and worked alongside those who were easily identified as minorities. Since my time there the proportion has increased.
As for the 'reform' of nursing: my daughter is a midwife and would not recognise anything other than understaffing, underpayment and increased workload and in that aspect, the police are already there. From what I know, teaching reform amounted to changing the name of a few things, and being ignored by those in charge.
The last bit of reform to the working practices of the federated ranks, PACE, was welcomed by them. There was criticism of some aspects, some of which have been addressed. The recording of interviews and cell blocks was welcomed by police officers, not to say demanded. Body cameras, at least going by serving officers on here, is welcomed and indeed demanded.
It is the prejudiced against the police who are stuck in the dark ages.
One reform the police really need is to stop being used to further political careers. That would be nice. But then the NHS and schooling are also demanding that reform but are ignored.
Teaching reformed? Now there's a laugh.
V8 Fettler said:
If it makes sense then it's more likely to be true, although alternative views should not be discounted.
It has to make sense, but we have to be careful as to how much weight we assign to something in which we have limited information. 'Associative coherence' makes us overconfident in our conclusions because something makes sense to us. A chap named Daniel Kahneman, considered to be the greatest living psychologist, figured this out. Eclassy said:
Dinosaurs are always resistant to change. Your hope is that the police service remains stuck in the dark ages of jobs for chums, unchecked nepotism and a job for life despite a lack of ability. Unfortunately for you lot things are changing.
The old 'resistant to change', contrived, negative management-type response to anyone who disagrees with a change. Eclassy said:
We are already seeing some reforms in the service. When I came to this country (London) I never ever saw an officer who was an ethnic minority. Just the usual suspects policing a city with 40% minority population. Now you see different faces even if most of them are PCSOs, its still an improvement.
On one hand you're praising the idea that the police may need degrees to enter, yet fail to realise that the absence of this requirement was of great help to begin recruitment of minorities. The first and second-generation migrants would have been unable to enter the service, generally, had there been a requirement for a degree. Do you apply the sweeping generalisation to their abilities? Representation is a lot better at university, but there are still plenty of disparities to find. It's not quite as simple as having a degree, is it? Having a degree doesn't fall in line with the proposals. It's a 'degree in policing' or a 'conversation course'. One which contains elements like self-defence. The primary benefits being spoken of is the cost saving and how it sounds like it'll save money training. That implication there is the academic level will be on par with the initial police training.
It practically sounds like loading the costs of police training on to the police officers and calling it a 'degree'.
Eclassy said:
The days of 'Sarge, mi lad is 6'5 but don't got any GCSEs, any chance he can help out at the custody desk' are gone.
If they have GCSEs, do they use question marks for questions? Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff