Police too busy!

[anonymous-user]

V6Pushfit said:

La Liga said:

You're criticising shift patterns and then suggesting one in the same paragraph.

Including 'but' and 'interested to see', then no I'm not. I don't work in the Police just see the issues from the lack of organisation from the outside.

It's plain to read.

It's not as easy when you actually have to commit to one, is it?

How can you not have shift patterns with an organisation that requires 24/7 cover? How can they, if there's 24/7 cover required, be of a 'bygone era'?

Bigends said:

We used to work a 7 on 2 off Nights/lates and earlies pattern. Provided good cover - wouldn't have the numbers to cover that now and I doubt that many would want to work regular 7 days on the trot.

It was very unhealthy (the turnarounds) and, like you say, required the numbers.

Fewer, bigger shifts working longer hours are the only realistic options today.

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

It's plain to read.

It's not as easy when you actually have to commit to one, is it?

How can you not have shift patterns with an organisation that requires 24/7 cover? How can they, if there's 24/7 cover required, be of a 'bygone era'?

I have no interest in doing the reorganising of the Police service on PH, but it needs reorganising from what can plainly be seen that's for sure.
As the papers said last week, the NHS is struggling to cope in the face of 24/7 working and cant manage efficiency for toffee - but Tescos can.

[davemac250]

Can someone take him up on his idea of removing he option to be put through to custody. That sodding phone gives me a headache every day!! Never stops ringing.

A lot of what has been raised recently goes back to my post detailing changes that are occurring, and going to make things worse.

In a last ditch attempt to spread what is left over a 24/7 shift pattern for response and neighbourhood policing, investigation teams are being cut. They did provide a single point of contact for investigations in my force. These investigations will now be retained by response officers. They work a 9 hour shift pattern of 2 early shifts, 2 evening and 3 nights with 3 days off. Remember that on the first day off they finish work at 7am. They will be attending calls from the moment they start. There is no let up.

My district covers 350,000 people and includes the fourth most expensive real estate in the country to what was recognised as the area with the lowest quality of life by a government survey in 2014.

We parade between 14 and 18 officers per shift. Granted, we do not have a big area to cover. I suspect Dibbles numbers are lower. Much.

We have a large concentration of children's homes, mental health facilities and supported living. These will abstract a quarter of the shift every shift in some way.

I have 18 cells. They are full. Constantly. We send prisoners across force borders to house them on a weekend.

Mine is not the busiest district in my area and we are expected to support out busier neighbours.

Officers do not get trained properly. This is a simple fact. Training budgets have been more than halved.

OP - posters mention the army to try and get you to look at your assertion all officers are useless. If you can't see that I'd refer you to your recent pop at toomany2cvs where you accused him of posting the same thing over and over...

Our, your, police force is broken. I've been 'selected' to join a discussion group within my force to suggest ways to fix things. I've seen the budgets, there isn't enough money.

[walm]

V6Pushfit said:

I have no interest in doing the reorganising of the Police service on PH, but it needs reorganising from what can plainly be seen that's for sure.
As the papers said last week, the NHS is struggling to cope in the face of 24/7 working and cant manage efficiency for toffee - but Tescos can.

I can't "plainly see" that it needs reorganising.
I am sure it could do with some more warm bodies but that is a different issue.
What evidence do you have that the current shift patterns are inefficient or badly organised?

Just because they chose NFA on a bunch of minor crime could well be a capacity issue not a utilisation issue.
And one thing that people tend to forget is the impact from squeezes at the CPS.
If something has a ZERO chance of prosecution then there is no point taking it further.

Lastly, I am not sure that I would highlight the car crash that is Tescos over the last few years!!

[anonymous-user]

V6Pushfit said:

I have no interest in doing the reorganising of the Police service on PH, but it needs reorganising from what can plainly be seen that's for sure.
As the papers said last week, the NHS is struggling to cope in the face of 24/7 working and cant manage efficiency for toffee - but Tescos can.

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to police shift patterns. You proposed something that didn't even have 24/7 cover.

Of all the private sector companies you could have picked, you picked Tesco. A wonderful example of private sector efficiency given it has lost 60% of its share price over the last 6 years. Are you going to go for RBS next?

Do you understand how demand is inverted with the public and private sector? It doesn't appear so from what you've written. Demand is generally a positive for the private sector as it is directly linked to revenue, where as the public sector it is 'bad' as it spreads finite resources more thinly.

There's also the 'volatility' within the demand (standard deviations). Tesco will be low where as the emergency services will be higher, but that's a little advanced.

[Dibble]

mph1977 said:

Fane said:

Dibble said:

/snip... So just to remind the OP, for those 250,000 people, how many officers do you think were on duty between 2200 and 0700 (including traffic, firearms and dogs).

A thought provoking response, Dibble. I'm interested - 100?

i doubt the enitre establishment for the area is 100 ... more likely to be between 1/5 and 1/6th of that number assuming no particualr call on numbers to be abstracted ...

100? Nowhere near.

One Inspector. Responsible for the entire area and circa 475,000 population of the division (not just the bit I was in). Also responsible for reviewing those in custody overnight (throughput in my 10 hour shift of 22 people, in and out).

Two sergeants, who no longer have the luxury of managing staff, and end up basically being panda drivers as well, radio driven from job to job. Sounds great, extra pairs of hands? It's not. They should be supervising their staff. Making sure they're OK, working properly, keeping on top of their investigations, keeping victims updated, dealing with welfare issues...

11 constables, plus a roads policing officer and two firearms officers (who can be deployed county wide at any moment - we're lucky if we keep hold of them a full shift, and because they need to be instantly deployable, they can't really get tied up with anything complicated or prisoners). No dog. No helicopter.

Me.

The team establishment is somewhere in the low 20s from memory. Every single team is running at about 2/3 of he agreed strength when everyone is on duty. Take staff off who are sick/on leave/suspended/training/diverted for court and it's nearer 50% of the AGREED safe operating limits.

There is some overlap at weekends on nights because that is our busiest time. Those extra officers are generally tasked with dealing with drunken idiots in the town centre. There is little capacity for double crewing, investigation or proactive policing. We are almost exclusively responding rather than preventing.

[RogueTrooper]

When I was last on response, within the last two years, I usually paraded on alone or with one crewmate to cover 150 square miles, something like 60,000 population. After that, our nearest backup was around 15 miles away.

[anonymous-user]

davemac250 said:

OP - posters mention the army to try and get you to look at your assertion all officers are useless. If you can't see that I'd refer you to your recent pop at toomany2cvs where you accused him of posting the same thing over and over...

Our, your, police force is broken. I've been 'selected' to join a discussion group within my force to suggest ways to fix things. I've seen the budgets, there isn't enough money.

I've said that not all officers are useless - 14 pages ago. If I had said all officers are useless, how would mentioning the army change anything or make me think differently?

I have conceded that army personnel have failings. That doesn't really have any bearing on the police though. It appears that most people on here can't do that about police officers and continue to blame the media, budgets etc.

As for 2cv, he wasn't expressing an opinion, he was completely misquoting an act and misunderstanding quite simple legislation.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 26th May 17:28

[walm]

bmw535i said:

I've said that not all officers are useless - 14 pages ago.

Yet...

bmw535i said:

I have a complete lack of faith in the police force.
I have no time for the police whatsoever.
I just think the police are utterly useless.

If not all officers are useless, why do you think the police are utterly useless?

Do you need help looking up the meaning of the word "utterly"?

[anonymous-user]

walm said:

If not all officers are useless, why do you think the police are utterly useless?

Do you need help looking up the meaning of the word "utterly"?

Because of my experiences of them (I think I might have mentioned that before)

I don't recall ever saying "all police are useless", but several have quoted me as doing so. Mind you, I was also misquoted as saying something like "waiting for a response from Dibble" which I never said.

Surely police officers are expected to be meticulous when it comes to things like this - writing statements etc. No wonder so many people get off charges from "lack of evidence". And they say soldiers are thick

[walm]

bmw535i said:

I was also misquoted as saying something like "waiting for a response from Dibble" which I never said.

Surely police officers are expected to be meticulous when it comes to things like this - writing statements etc. No wonder so many people get off charges from "lack of evidence". And they say soldiers are thick

Not being funny but you are being incredibly slow here.

The whole Dibble thing wasn't a "misquote" - you just don't understand what point the obviously fake quote was trying to make.

Whoever made the fake quote was saying that you hadn't responded to Dibble's very long post which refuted many of the points you made earlier in the thread.

The point of the fake quote was to suggest that since you hadn't responded to Dibble's post - you had been proven wrong with empirical evidence from someone in the know.

It would be similar to me putting:

bmw535i said:

Inconsistent argument.

That's doesn't mean those are your actual words - it means that is the content of what you have said, or not said.

So after all this - you are saying that the individual policemen YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH were utterly useless but you don't believe that ALL police are useless. (i.e. you DO NOT believe the police are utterly useless.)

But despite that, for some mad reason, you don't have time for the police and you have a COMPLETE lack of faith in them.

Even though plenty of them are perfectly competent you don't give a crap about them - you have a COMPLETE lack of faith.

[anonymous-user]

Yes. I think you're getting it.

ETA - I haven't said i don't give a crap about them

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 26th May 18:29

[anonymous-user]

When have I said "all police are useless"? That is your interpretation of my comments. I have said way back that I'm sure there are good ones.

[singlecoil]

bmw535i said:

Stuff

Time to stop digging, perhaps?

[Cat]

bmw535i said:

When have I said "all police are useless"? That is your interpretation of my comments. I have said way back that I'm sure there are good ones.

You may not have used those exact words but you've certainly expressed the sentiment in other words e.g. this morning you said

bmw535i said:

It only confirms my belief that police officers are stupid

No mention that you are only referring to some officers, just a sweeping generalisation.

There is a certain irony in asserting that 200,000ish police officers are stupid on the basis of your personal interaction with a tiny minority of this number.

Cat

[anonymous-user]

I'm referring to all the officers apart from Dibble who have posted on here as stupid. Trying to pick silly arguments isn't going to change anything from my point of view.

Why is everyone so bothered about what I think anyway?

[anonymous-user]

I don't think they are, I just think this they find it mildly amusing to highlight your inconsistencies as you keep digging and going off on different tangents as a distraction.

[Greendubber]

bmw535i said:

I'm referring to all the officers apart from Dibble who have posted on here as stupid. Trying to pick silly arguments isn't going to change anything from my point of view.

Why is everyone so bothered about what I think anyway?

There's only one person looking stupid on this thread, see if you can work out who it is.

I'll give you a clue, he wears a uniform and its probably green.

[Cat]

bmw535i said:

I'm referring to all the officers apart from Dibble who have posted on here as stupid. Trying to pick silly arguments isn't going to change anything from my point of view.

Of course you were.

I'm not looking to pick silly arguments nor seeking to change your point of view I was merely responding to your question.

Cat

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

hat's because you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to police shift patterns. You proposed something that didn't even have 24/7 cover.

Of all the private sector companies you could have picked, you picked Tesco. A wonderful example of private sector efficiency given it has lost 60% of its share price over the last 6 years. Are you going to go for RBS next?

Do you understand how demand is inverted with the public and private sector? It doesn't appear so from what you've written. Demand is generally a positive for the private sector as it is directly linked to revenue, where as the public sector it is 'bad' as it spreads finite resources more thinly.

There's also the 'volatility' within the demand (standard deviations). Tesco will be low where as the emergency services will be higher, but that's a little advanced.

Shows the shallowness of your arguments really in your comments about Tescos. Had it gone over your head that their share price has ZILCH to do with 24/7 opening and everything to do with retail prices?? Typical blunt half understood reasoning.