Police detain 11 year of girl with a neurological disability

[mph1977]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Yesterday, one of my shift had to spend just over 12 hours sitting with a patient who had been detained under 136. She was a nice lady, but an alcoholic. The alcoholic part was the issue, as she was blowing well over 100 even after several hours. Custody wouldn't take her (rightly so.....patient not prisoner) and the 136 suite wouldn't take responsibility and assess until completely sober! The assess bit I understand, but this was a secure unit! So that was one cop (should really have been 2) out of the game for a full 12 hours. Worst part is that there were no beds, so this poor lady was having to try and sleep on chairs, whilst coming off alcohol, and while in desperate need of help.

Alcohol withdrawl (if she is a chronic user) needs to be managed in an acute general hospital setting ... the Mental Health team have put the officer and the patient at risk there.

Alcohol withdrawl is actually one of them ore dangerous types of withdrawl - while clucking makes people feel really really grim - no one dies of clucking ... people do die of alcohol withdrawl - usually becasue their seizure threshold is lowered without alcohol or something else ( usually chlordiazepoxide aka librium)

[paulmakin]

MHA Code of Practice covers this ^ quite clearly. the individual receives the necessary medical treatment and then continues the journey to the approved place of safety. if the individual is in acute withdrawal then continued medical treatment is required. they remain the responsibility of the officers until they arrive at the health based and approved place of safety - this is within the Act and not something we made up to suit ourselves.

the MHA specifically excludes "drunkenness" as grounds for detention - i know that the assessors will be aware of this and can understand their not proceeding with their assessment until sobriety and medical fitness are achieved. their position is that they cannot complete a valid assessment whilst alcohol intoxication may be blurring the presentation. my own view, and practice, is slightly different; i will and do assess people with alcohol on board as i believe adequate levels of comprehension to be more relevant than a BAC. a MH assessment/review is always challenging and covers some complex and abstract themes - if an individual cannot fully comprehend then the ax is meaningless and, according to the Codes, potentially invalid

some acute hospital based MH teams will complete assessments on those referred to AE from custody but it's by no means commonplace. this stance is an artifact of older systems and service configurations but is, from the health standpoint, an issue for commissioner groups. put crudely, it's not usually part of the service being bought from a hospital based team. it's slightly emotive and potentially leading to suggest that these teams are refusing - quite simply, it's not as yet part of their role and i wouldn't seek to hold the "team" responsible for gaps in service provision. morally, there's no absolutely no case against it and a strong pro-argument but most of us have our working lives governed by contracts, job specs, regulations etc and if it's not within the service framework then it's not really part of the job. be clear - i'm not saying that it shouldn't be (i advocate "all ages, all pathways" for these teams) just that it, currently, isn't .

davemac - sorry but i'm a bit "night-brain" at the moment as i still can't see what conclusions you're ascribing to me? if it's the bit about MH services as alternative to police disposal then pls accept an apology. this isn't a point i was trying to make. there is a "healthy debate" around certain sections of the population whose acts and behaviours bring them into frequent contact with statutory services. these people are usually well known and, experientially, their chaotic and challenging lifestyles tend to get rolled up into some pocket-book psychopathology which, when scrutinised, is found to be faulty. genaralising i know but it's a real world occurrence and it's frequently raised by MH practitioners.

i suspect that i may be lucky in my current job as, although there are for sure "issues", they tend not to be on the scale of some of the things one reads about. i meet monthly, for several hours, in a big room at trust headquarters with senior officers, ambulance service leads, 101 leads, MH community and in-pt leads, MH trust clinical directors, crisis team leads, senior clinicians from the local acute trusts/AE depts, the locality AMHP leads etc. i'd like to think we sort most things in this forum and we have a remit to tweak protocols, undertake incident reviews, implement change plans etc. rather thankfully i no longer chair this meeting as its akin to herding cats.

paul

[paulmakin]

Mk3Spitfire - just out of interest. in your post, why MHA and not MCA? an individual can be rendered incapacitous for any reason (including intoxication) so a best interest decision could have been possible. that decision could have been to convey to the local AE for assessment and treatment and, unlike 136, the duty of care passes to health, rather than police, on arrival.

without knowing the circumstances it's difficult to say but could this have been an alternative decision taken by the officers which would have seen them back on their more usual duties much more speedily ?

i've had exactly the same in one of my hospitals. known individual, frequent flyer with the same presentation - mental and behavioural changes secondary to acute alcohol intoxication. usually she's brought in under capacity testing and practitioners wait for her to sober up and then discharge post review. on one occasion officers used 136. they then had to stay whilst we treated her for her drunkenness and they then had to attend the approved place of safety with her. this took many hours of 2 officers time. outcome of the assessment was immediate release (she was by then sober and "normal").

paul

[Mk3Spitfire]

paulmakin said:

Mk3Spitfire - just out of interest. in your post, why MHA and not MCA? an individual can be rendered incapacitous for any reason (including intoxication) so a best interest decision could have been possible. that decision could have been to convey to the local AE for assessment and treatment and, unlike 136, the duty of care passes to health, rather than police, on arrival.

without knowing the circumstances it's difficult to say but could this have been an alternative decision taken by the officers which would have seen them back on their more usual duties much more speedily ?

i've had exactly the same in one of my hospitals. known individual, frequent flyer with the same presentation - mental and behavioural changes secondary to acute alcohol intoxication. usually she's brought in under capacity testing and practitioners wait for her to sober up and then discharge post review. on one occasion officers used 136. they then had to stay whilst we treated her for her drunkenness and they then had to attend the approved place of safety with her. this took many hours of 2 officers time. outcome of the assessment was immediate release (she was by then sober and "normal").

paul

Not fully aware of all the details myself, but I think she was detained more for suicidal thoughts (which is another interesting point - is someone mentally unwell per se if they are suicidal? I don't think so) than the fact she was incapacitated through drink. But...as of late, A&E have been instructing us to take 136's direct to specialist wards/suites. As I said, I wasn't privy to all the details as I was overseeing something else at the time. We generally take them to A&E first, but as I'm
Sure you're aware, they're not exactly flush with space very often, and try and prevent 136's coming in if possible.

[mph1977]

Mk3Spitfire said:

paulmakin said:

Mk3Spitfire - just out of interest. in your post, why MHA and not MCA? an individual can be rendered incapacitous for any reason (including intoxication) so a best interest decision could have been possible. that decision could have been to convey to the local AE for assessment and treatment and, unlike 136, the duty of care passes to health, rather than police, on arrival.

without knowing the circumstances it's difficult to say but could this have been an alternative decision taken by the officers which would have seen them back on their more usual duties much more speedily ?

i've had exactly the same in one of my hospitals. known individual, frequent flyer with the same presentation - mental and behavioural changes secondary to acute alcohol intoxication. usually she's brought in under capacity testing and practitioners wait for her to sober up and then discharge post review. on one occasion officers used 136. they then had to stay whilst we treated her for her drunkenness and they then had to attend the approved place of safety with her. this took many hours of 2 officers time. outcome of the assessment was immediate release (she was by then sober and "normal").

paul

Not fully aware of all the details myself, but I think she was detained more for suicidal thoughts (which is another interesting point - is someone mentally unwell per se if they are suicidal? I don't think so) than the fact she was incapacitated through drink. But...as of late, A&E have been instructing us to take 136's direct to specialist wards/suites. As I said, I wasn't privy to all the details as I was overseeing something else at the time. We generally take them to A&E first, but as I'm
Sure you're aware, they're not exactly flush with space very often, and try and prevent 136's coming in if possible.

Primarily becasue A+E is not a 'place of safety' and if someone has no injuryor illness that requires the emergency department it;s often a fail on the 4 hour target especially as A+E observation beds / CDUs are often full of overspill from medicla assessment ...

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

The model deals with the essentials. Responding to emergencies and dealing with people who have been arrested are the two most important aspects of policing. These are what a lot of forces have had to strip down to.

Financial penalties are all good and well, but if the issues stem from too few staff then they add little to no benefit. If the root cause of a MH delay is that there are no beds, then there are no beds. Charging the NHS doesn't change that.

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

I estimate that ensuring an MH professional is available 24/7 would at least match the cost of Elroy if not exceed it. 9-5 is a different thing altogether.

[V8 Fettler]

Any figures? Shift allowance (or equivalent) should make very little difference in the general scheme of things. Infrastructure cost for Elroy is substantial.

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

I don't think you quite understand. It is not La Liga's model, it is the government's, although that supposes they looked beyond their political decision into the result of their actions.

Also, I don't think you understand the history of policing to suggest that having response as the main function is 18th century.

The policing model had changed significantly in the 30 years I was in the job and had moved on after that. Since 2000 it has, of necessity, regressed to the stage where we are at now. With further cuts this and next year - despite what May said - it will get worse. What is remarkable is that with the slashing of numbers the forces have been able to keep running, some, probably many, by selling off assets, something which obviously can't go on forever.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

The model deals with the essentials. Responding to emergencies and dealing with people who have been arrested are the two most important aspects of policing. These are what a lot of forces have had to strip down to.

Financial penalties are all good and well, but if the issues stem from too few staff then they add little to no benefit. If the root cause of a MH delay is that there are no beds, then there are no beds. Charging the NHS doesn't change that.

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

I don't think the costing is right as the other facets like lack of foster carers and extra beds for MH patients etc are often the causes. Extra beds for MH patients requires extra buildings, extra ward staff etc.

I don't think there was much 'prisoner process' in the 18th century. There weren't too many call centres or mobile phones creating mass-demand, necessitating police officers be in vehicles as opposed to on foot.

Long-term crime projections? No idea, as it'd be a waste of time given how many variables there are to crime and disorder, many of which are external.

[mph1977]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

I estimate that ensuring an MH professional is available 24/7 would at least match the cost of Elroy if not exceed it. 9-5 is a different thing altogether.

I would agree with that , as an experienced band 5 HCP / band 6 HCP working a 24/7 rotational post will earn a similar amount to reasonably experienced Constable. this is before consideraing any infrastructural changes required to properly deliver a 24/7 service beyond the current extremely limited crisis team cover out of hours ...

[V8 Fettler]

mph1977 said:

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

I estimate that ensuring an MH professional is available 24/7 would at least match the cost of Elroy if not exceed it. 9-5 is a different thing altogether.

I would agree with that , as an experienced band 5 HCP / band 6 HCP working a 24/7 rotational post will earn a similar amount to reasonably experienced Constable. this is before consideraing any infrastructural changes required to properly deliver a 24/7 service beyond the current extremely limited crisis team cover out of hours ...

Any figures? Is not the crisis team precisely what Elroy is standing in for?

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

I don't think you quite understand. It is not La Liga's model, it is the government's, although that supposes they looked beyond their political decision into the result of their actions.

Also, I don't think you understand the history of policing to suggest that having response as the main function is 18th century.

The policing model had changed significantly in the 30 years I was in the job and had moved on after that. Since 2000 it has, of necessity, regressed to the stage where we are at now. With further cuts this and next year - despite what May said - it will get worse. What is remarkable is that with the slashing of numbers the forces have been able to keep running, some, probably many, by selling off assets, something which obviously can't go on forever.

La Liga said:

The force I work for us using a model they are assessing as failing.

The model referred to is the model used by La Liga's force.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

The model deals with the essentials. Responding to emergencies and dealing with people who have been arrested are the two most important aspects of policing. These are what a lot of forces have had to strip down to.

Financial penalties are all good and well, but if the issues stem from too few staff then they add little to no benefit. If the root cause of a MH delay is that there are no beds, then there are no beds. Charging the NHS doesn't change that.

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

I don't think the costing is right as the other facets like lack of foster carers and extra beds for MH patients etc are often the causes. Extra beds for MH patients requires extra buildings, extra ward staff etc.

I don't think there was much 'prisoner process' in the 18th century. There weren't too many call centres or mobile phones creating mass-demand, necessitating police officers be in vehicles as opposed to on foot.

Long-term crime projections? No idea, as it'd be a waste of time given how many variables there are to crime and disorder, many of which are external.

How are you going to undermine those who wish to impose the model unless you can demonstrate flaws in the model? Unless the plan is to wait for catastrophic failure.

If Elroy's duties when he steps in for MH staff involve being there for a vulnerable person and nothing more, why can this not be dealt with by MH staff on a call-out rota?

[Derek Smith]

V8 Fettler said:

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

I don't think you quite understand. It is not La Liga's model, it is the government's, although that supposes they looked beyond their political decision into the result of their actions.

Also, I don't think you understand the history of policing to suggest that having response as the main function is 18th century.

The policing model had changed significantly in the 30 years I was in the job and had moved on after that. Since 2000 it has, of necessity, regressed to the stage where we are at now. With further cuts this and next year - despite what May said - it will get worse. What is remarkable is that with the slashing of numbers the forces have been able to keep running, some, probably many, by selling off assets, something which obviously can't go on forever.

La Liga said:

The force I work for us using a model they are assessing as failing.

The model referred to is the model used by La Liga's force.

What I was referring to was the lack of any police force in this country until 1829. Even then, the main functions of the police was, at that time and for many years after, almost solely public order. Forces changed at their own speed and so there is no specific date when forces moved to responding. Even into the early 70s many forces did not have, for instance, personal radios for all officers and so the only responding anyone did was a specific unit and the rest reported them some days later.

Most forces are now forced into the situation of being unable to function in the way that they had been been designed to over many years. In my force, for instance, there was a move to put officers into the community. It was costly but the benefits supported it. Now they have not only sold the local police 'houses', but many town stations.

We are moving into a model that is new. It is not reverting to any old one but into a foreign country.

The problem is that there is no reserve - the modifiers of strategic and tactical would be farcical as there can be no strategy at the moment. The first time that there is a call for mutual aid, the response will be poor. I know of a force which if asked for mutual aid there will be large towns with no dedicated officers. So those officers who now are unable to respond to calls in their own town will also be unable to respond to calls in those towns which have had to be sacrificed to luck.

The only plans have been focused on coping with slashed funding. It goes deeper than the government have promised by the way. The promise that it would remain at 2015 levels is an outright lie. My old force is taking a big hit next year. Planning for future policing is pointless as no one knows how much money they will be getting.

What the police forces need is reform to cope with slashed budgets, but that isn't coming. The last reform was in 1984. It was very positive, although not entirely so. No change for 30+ years. Slashing budgets isn't reform. The police are obliged to cover the same things. It is not farcical, it is a tragedy.

There is no doubt in my mind that many police functions are to be privatised and this is part of the softening-up process.

Political interference in the police will reduce it to uselessness.

[mph1977]

V8 Fettler said:

mph1977 said:

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

I estimate that ensuring an MH professional is available 24/7 would at least match the cost of Elroy if not exceed it. 9-5 is a different thing altogether.

I would agree with that , as an experienced band 5 HCP / band 6 HCP working a 24/7 rotational post will earn a similar amount to reasonably experienced Constable. this is before consideraing any infrastructural changes required to properly deliver a 24/7 service beyond the current extremely limited crisis team cover out of hours ...

Any figures? Is not the crisis team precisely what Elroy is standing in for?

do you need the spoon fed easy read version ?

AfC pay scales FY 2016-17

https://www.rcn.org.uk/employment-and-pay/nhs-pay-...


Police pays scales 2015 -2016 ( police pay settlement is mid FY iirc)

http://www.tvpfed.org/pay-scales


current crisis team provision is a tiny fraction of day time cover same with social work Emergency duty team - it;s the old fashioned model of on call working rather than a core 24/7 service as the police / ambulance ./ acute general hospital A+E and admission units work

[Red Devil]

Derek Smith said:

What I was referring to was the lack of any police force in this country until 1829.

I beg to differ. Contrary to popular belief the Met was not the country's first professional police force.
That honour fell to the Scots 29 years earlier: the Glasgow Police Act 1800.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

The model deals with the essentials. Responding to emergencies and dealing with people who have been arrested are the two most important aspects of policing. These are what a lot of forces have had to strip down to.

Financial penalties are all good and well, but if the issues stem from too few staff then they add little to no benefit. If the root cause of a MH delay is that there are no beds, then there are no beds. Charging the NHS doesn't change that.

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.

In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.

I don't think the costing is right as the other facets like lack of foster carers and extra beds for MH patients etc are often the causes. Extra beds for MH patients requires extra buildings, extra ward staff etc.

I don't think there was much 'prisoner process' in the 18th century. There weren't too many call centres or mobile phones creating mass-demand, necessitating police officers be in vehicles as opposed to on foot.

Long-term crime projections? No idea, as it'd be a waste of time given how many variables there are to crime and disorder, many of which are external.

How are you going to undermine those who wish to impose the model unless you can demonstrate flaws in the model? Unless the plan is to wait for catastrophic failure.

If Elroy's duties when he steps in for MH staff involve being there for a vulnerable person and nothing more, why can this not be dealt with by MH staff on a call-out rota?

Why would I want to undermine them? I think it's the best permutation available as I wrote previously:

La Liga said:

I personally believe it's about the most efficient model (I have no vested interest in it) and that moving the pieces around isn't going to change much.

There's a threshold in which demand will outweigh supply when you have a finite number of resources, no matter which structures are undertaken. It's a good attitude to have, to look at alternative solutions, but there comes a point where it's important to realise that there's no escaping a demand / supply mismatch, and that the 'least worst' option is preferable in the circumstances.

You could have a call out rota for scenarios where there'd be pure 'remaining with a vulnerable person', but that adds to the net cost of the public services. The police officer is a 'sunk cost' i.e. already paid for, regardless of what he and she is doing. We've explored why simply transferring the policing funds to the NHS won't work for policing, so I don't consider that a viable option.

[Derek Smith]

Red Devil said:

Derek Smith said:

What I was referring to was the lack of any police force in this country until 1829.

I beg to differ. Contrary to popular belief the Met was not the country's first professional police force.
That honour fell to the Scots 29 years earlier: the Glasgow Police Act 1800.

It is arguable. If one allows the GCP to be police, then the City of London could also claim to have preceded both the Mets and Glasgow. In fact in the 70s the City used to claim the throne.

If one allows arguments against the CoL being first then so too must we allow them against the GCP.

But I'm not one to suggest that the Met police bullied the CoL into submission. No, I'd never say that.

[V8 Fettler]

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

Derek Smith said:

V8 Fettler said:

Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?

I don't think you quite understand. It is not La Liga's model, it is the government's, although that supposes they looked beyond their political decision into the result of their actions.

Also, I don't think you understand the history of policing to suggest that having response as the main function is 18th century.

The policing model had changed significantly in the 30 years I was in the job and had moved on after that. Since 2000 it has, of necessity, regressed to the stage where we are at now. With further cuts this and next year - despite what May said - it will get worse. What is remarkable is that with the slashing of numbers the forces have been able to keep running, some, probably many, by selling off assets, something which obviously can't go on forever.

La Liga said:

The force I work for us using a model they are assessing as failing.

The model referred to is the model used by La Liga's force.

What I was referring to was the lack of any police force in this country until 1829. Even then, the main functions of the police was, at that time and for many years after, almost solely public order. Forces changed at their own speed and so there is no specific date when forces moved to responding. Even into the early 70s many forces did not have, for instance, personal radios for all officers and so the only responding anyone did was a specific unit and the rest reported them some days later.

Most forces are now forced into the situation of being unable to function in the way that they had been been designed to over many years. In my force, for instance, there was a move to put officers into the community. It was costly but the benefits supported it. Now they have not only sold the local police 'houses', but many town stations.

We are moving into a model that is new. It is not reverting to any old one but into a foreign country.

The problem is that there is no reserve - the modifiers of strategic and tactical would be farcical as there can be no strategy at the moment. The first time that there is a call for mutual aid, the response will be poor. I know of a force which if asked for mutual aid there will be large towns with no dedicated officers. So those officers who now are unable to respond to calls in their own town will also be unable to respond to calls in those towns which have had to be sacrificed to luck.

The only plans have been focused on coping with slashed funding. It goes deeper than the government have promised by the way. The promise that it would remain at 2015 levels is an outright lie. My old force is taking a big hit next year. Planning for future policing is pointless as no one knows how much money they will be getting.

What the police forces need is reform to cope with slashed budgets, but that isn't coming. The last reform was in 1984. It was very positive, although not entirely so. No change for 30+ years. Slashing budgets isn't reform. The police are obliged to cover the same things. It is not farcical, it is a tragedy.

There is no doubt in my mind that many police functions are to be privatised and this is part of the softening-up process.

Political interference in the police will reduce it to uselessness.

Peel, 1829, preventative policing. Surprised that you - of all people Derek - didn't see the reference to pre-Peel.