Private Policeforces!
Discussion
I guess a look at how the NHS has changed could be a clue on the direction of the police force.
In my state of New Jersey we a police force for almost every town (called Cities, but they are essentially towns) We have around 300 Police Chiefs.
So each ends up individual in nature and each has its own reputation on enforcement. "Don't speed in "X" township if you are not a resident".
Police Chiefs are elected, I'll let you work that out
Two golf clubs near me are their "own towns" (as is Disney in Florida), which creates in effect a private police force. One of the golf courses has a Police Chief not sure about the other.
The police are trained to the same standard, but human nature dictates once assigned they will adopt the MO of their local town who employs them.
So where I live it's good thing.
If I lived elsewhere maybe not
Rife with potential problems.
In my state of New Jersey we a police force for almost every town (called Cities, but they are essentially towns) We have around 300 Police Chiefs.
So each ends up individual in nature and each has its own reputation on enforcement. "Don't speed in "X" township if you are not a resident".
Police Chiefs are elected, I'll let you work that out
Two golf clubs near me are their "own towns" (as is Disney in Florida), which creates in effect a private police force. One of the golf courses has a Police Chief
not sure about the other.The police are trained to the same standard, but human nature dictates once assigned they will adopt the MO of their local town who employs them.
So where I live it's good thing.
If I lived elsewhere maybe not
Rife with potential problems.
Elroy Blue said:
Mojocvh said:
They are already decimating the armed forces cut by cut by cut, at least you have a union to fight your case.
Good Luck.
A 'Union'. Good Luck.
I assume you mean the Police Federation. They are about as much use as a chocolate tea cosy. Although they gave built themselves a very nice HQ out of our subscriptions. Ask any Officer their views of 'The Fed' and 99 out of 100 will say useless. The other one will be a Fed Rep.
I too am actively seeking a way out. Our whole command unit is under review. They are looking at resources and seeing where they can make improvements, despite the obvious fact of losing numbers on the ground. I am on a TSG style unit, however we have responsibility for Cannabis farms, child abuse image jobs, low level frauds and anything to do with local prisons. This is on top of a commitment to assist in searches with OCU, football and night time economy public order and the responsibility of a given area to reduce crime. They are considering losing us to put us back on regular shifts just so that we can focus on going to the core response calls. I'm not sure who they think will do the other stuff, as the whole of the response team seems to be constantly chasing their tail reducing the number of incidents on the queue.
Major crime will suffer as there'll be no-one looking to take on big jobs as they dont produce the figures. It'll be stick a plaster on it and move on.
Chicken Chaser said:
Useless, absolutely spineless, not worth the money we pay for them. I have thought of pulling my subs many a time as a protest but I have the life insurance policy and travel policy so stay in it for that. If I ever thought they'd fight our corner then I would quite happily support them. They've failed me on a personal level previously, and they are doing nothing to assist us an organisation.
I too am actively seeking a way out. Our whole command unit is under review. They are looking at resources and seeing where they can make improvements, despite the obvious fact of losing numbers on the ground. I am on a TSG style unit, however we have responsibility for Cannabis farms, child abuse image jobs, low level frauds and anything to do with local prisons. This is on top of a commitment to assist in searches with OCU, football and night time economy public order and the responsibility of a given area to reduce crime. They are considering losing us to put us back on regular shifts just so that we can focus on going to the core response calls. I'm not sure who they think will do the other stuff, as the whole of the response team seems to be constantly chasing their tail reducing the number of incidents on the queue.
Major crime will suffer as there'll be no-one looking to take on big jobs as they dont produce the figures. It'll be stick a plaster on it and move on.
How would a system work whereby you set up pools of specialist Assistants and each bobby was assigned one of these people. I too am actively seeking a way out. Our whole command unit is under review. They are looking at resources and seeing where they can make improvements, despite the obvious fact of losing numbers on the ground. I am on a TSG style unit, however we have responsibility for Cannabis farms, child abuse image jobs, low level frauds and anything to do with local prisons. This is on top of a commitment to assist in searches with OCU, football and night time economy public order and the responsibility of a given area to reduce crime. They are considering losing us to put us back on regular shifts just so that we can focus on going to the core response calls. I'm not sure who they think will do the other stuff, as the whole of the response team seems to be constantly chasing their tail reducing the number of incidents on the queue.
Major crime will suffer as there'll be no-one looking to take on big jobs as they dont produce the figures. It'll be stick a plaster on it and move on.
The purpose being that the bobby then didn't have any paperwork to do but was then on the 'beat' perpetually and downloaded the relevant information to their PA whose job it was to put it into the system and process it?
This is how extremely efficient sales teams run and it allows the specialist front office staff to spend 100% of their time doing what they are paid and trained to do, pulling in new business while their back office support sit at desks and spend 100% of their time processing the data etc?
Surely with modern tech this would be easy to run and result in far greater numbers of police out in their communities without increasing their numbers?
No reason why the admin side can't be privatised etc?
DonkeyApple said:
Surely with modern tech this would be easy to run and result in far greater numbers of police out in their communities without increasing their numbers?
Picture this,1. Most police work carried out by unmanned drones operated by civilians
2. Snatch squads of "police officers" who go out and nab the suspects.
Lovely.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Picture this,
1. Most police work carried out by unmanned drones operated by civilians
2. Snatch squads of "police officers" who go out and nab the suspects.
Lovely.
I had more a picture of an increase in plod out in public with more time to interact with the community. 1. Most police work carried out by unmanned drones operated by civilians
2. Snatch squads of "police officers" who go out and nab the suspects.
Lovely.
With people specifically trained in reading and writing to do their admin.
Under my theory of specialisation of skills you would leave snatch squads in the hands of professionals like Spearmint Rhino. And the computer game stuff to the lonely blokes bored between bouts of furious masturbation.
DonkeyApple said:
How would a system work whereby you set up pools of specialist Assistants and each bobby was assigned one of these people.
The purpose being that the bobby then didn't have any paperwork to do but was then on the 'beat' perpetually and downloaded the relevant information to their PA whose job it was to put it into the system and process it?
This is how extremely efficient sales teams run and it allows the specialist front office staff to spend 100% of their time doing what they are paid and trained to do, pulling in new business while their back office support sit at desks and spend 100% of their time processing the data etc?
Surely with modern tech this would be easy to run and result in far greater numbers of police out in their communities without increasing their numbers?
No reason why the admin side can't be privatised etc?
Now why wasn't this ever thought of before. Better still, why not have the police hire individual civilians rather than privetise it? After all, if there's a sudden downturn in the economy then the last thing the police would need is contracts lasting for years.The purpose being that the bobby then didn't have any paperwork to do but was then on the 'beat' perpetually and downloaded the relevant information to their PA whose job it was to put it into the system and process it?
This is how extremely efficient sales teams run and it allows the specialist front office staff to spend 100% of their time doing what they are paid and trained to do, pulling in new business while their back office support sit at desks and spend 100% of their time processing the data etc?
Surely with modern tech this would be easy to run and result in far greater numbers of police out in their communities without increasing their numbers?
No reason why the admin side can't be privatised etc?
I've come up with some ideas. Perhaps they could hire experienced people, even retired police officers, for basic plus 10%, to do things like take statements, arrange for warrants, licinsing visits, that sort of thing. Liaison with witnesses and victims. The more I think about this the better it sounds. Perhps they could also train the occasional staff member who is going to sueprvise the department later. Follow up enquiries, with these civvies in their own car on low mileage allowances. DF forms, fill in details of prisoners - the list is not perhaps endless but still pretty long.
I think I've got something here. Perhaps patent it? What do you think?
It is stunning why no one has ever given it a chance before, perhaps 10-15 years ago at the last round of cutbacks. Cor! These police, eh? Miss the obvious. I takes a salesman to point out the way to go.
Of course your experience with sales transfers directly to the nick. Let's have civilian staff in front offices, with perhaps a single police officer available for those things which require a warrant. The benefits of this are apparent as soon as you start thinking about it. I mean, people don't really need a PC for the vast majority of the queries. Maybe even have PCs who are injured, perhpas with a knee injury where he can't walk for more than a dozen steps at a time. If only they'd thought of that in 1985 when I got kicked in the side of the knee.
Then there's control rooms, admin staff - so damn obvious really - vehicle maintenance, ferrying vehicles, that sort of thing. Even cleaning the nick. Take police officers out of the courts, and upset the judges of course. Process work - think of all the hours civlians could save beat officers. The only thing to avoid is some sort of private finance initiative. But then if the forces felt, er, forced to go along that route perhaps they could approach the HMIC or the government and they would put a stop to such things. Of course they would because they are so stupid.
Not so sure about having one person assigned to an individual PC. There are times when a PC will be on obs, waiting to go to court, in a PSU serial, dealing with an incident that requires time but little in the way of paperwork, at a major incident, guarding something. So perhaps a pool of resources.
You'd thik, wouldn't you, after all the 'efficiencies' the service has been forced to endure since the ending of the miners' strike that someone would have come up with such ideas.
If they'd thought of all these thing then perhaps they would not be patronised so often, even by people who probably know only a little about how the service is run nowadays.
Derek Smith said:
Now why wasn't this ever thought of before. Better still, why not have the police hire individual civilians rather than privetise it? After all, if there's a sudden downturn in the economy then the last thing the police would need is contracts lasting for years.
I've come up with some ideas. Perhaps they could hire experienced people, even retired police officers, for basic plus 10%, to do things like take statements, arrange for warrants, licinsing visits, that sort of thing. Liaison with witnesses and victims. The more I think about this the better it sounds. Perhps they could also train the occasional staff member who is going to sueprvise the department later. Follow up enquiries, with these civvies in their own car on low mileage allowances. DF forms, fill in details of prisoners - the list is not perhaps endless but still pretty long.
I think I've got something here. Perhaps patent it? What do you think?
It is stunning why no one has ever given it a chance before, perhaps 10-15 years ago at the last round of cutbacks. Cor! These police, eh? Miss the obvious. I takes a salesman to point out the way to go.
Of course your experience with sales transfers directly to the nick. Let's have civilian staff in front offices, with perhaps a single police officer available for those things which require a warrant. The benefits of this are apparent as soon as you start thinking about it. I mean, people don't really need a PC for the vast majority of the queries. Maybe even have PCs who are injured, perhpas with a knee injury where he can't walk for more than a dozen steps at a time. If only they'd thought of that in 1985 when I got kicked in the side of the knee.
Then there's control rooms, admin staff - so damn obvious really - vehicle maintenance, ferrying vehicles, that sort of thing. Even cleaning the nick. Take police officers out of the courts, and upset the judges of course. Process work - think of all the hours civlians could save beat officers. The only thing to avoid is some sort of private finance initiative. But then if the forces felt, er, forced to go along that route perhaps they could approach the HMIC or the government and they would put a stop to such things. Of course they would because they are so stupid.
Not so sure about having one person assigned to an individual PC. There are times when a PC will be on obs, waiting to go to court, in a PSU serial, dealing with an incident that requires time but little in the way of paperwork, at a major incident, guarding something. So perhaps a pool of resources.
You'd thik, wouldn't you, after all the 'efficiencies' the service has been forced to endure since the ending of the miners' strike that someone would have come up with such ideas.
If they'd thought of all these thing then perhaps they would not be patronised so often, even by people who probably know only a little about how the service is run nowadays.
Maybe using retired officers isn't a good idea. A room full of Jackanories ranting on about their life's experiences in everything that's ever happened wouldn't result in much work getting done. Might lead to a spate of suicides which I guess could help with the cuts though. I've come up with some ideas. Perhaps they could hire experienced people, even retired police officers, for basic plus 10%, to do things like take statements, arrange for warrants, licinsing visits, that sort of thing. Liaison with witnesses and victims. The more I think about this the better it sounds. Perhps they could also train the occasional staff member who is going to sueprvise the department later. Follow up enquiries, with these civvies in their own car on low mileage allowances. DF forms, fill in details of prisoners - the list is not perhaps endless but still pretty long.
I think I've got something here. Perhaps patent it? What do you think?
It is stunning why no one has ever given it a chance before, perhaps 10-15 years ago at the last round of cutbacks. Cor! These police, eh? Miss the obvious. I takes a salesman to point out the way to go.
Of course your experience with sales transfers directly to the nick. Let's have civilian staff in front offices, with perhaps a single police officer available for those things which require a warrant. The benefits of this are apparent as soon as you start thinking about it. I mean, people don't really need a PC for the vast majority of the queries. Maybe even have PCs who are injured, perhpas with a knee injury where he can't walk for more than a dozen steps at a time. If only they'd thought of that in 1985 when I got kicked in the side of the knee.
Then there's control rooms, admin staff - so damn obvious really - vehicle maintenance, ferrying vehicles, that sort of thing. Even cleaning the nick. Take police officers out of the courts, and upset the judges of course. Process work - think of all the hours civlians could save beat officers. The only thing to avoid is some sort of private finance initiative. But then if the forces felt, er, forced to go along that route perhaps they could approach the HMIC or the government and they would put a stop to such things. Of course they would because they are so stupid.
Not so sure about having one person assigned to an individual PC. There are times when a PC will be on obs, waiting to go to court, in a PSU serial, dealing with an incident that requires time but little in the way of paperwork, at a major incident, guarding something. So perhaps a pool of resources.
You'd thik, wouldn't you, after all the 'efficiencies' the service has been forced to endure since the ending of the miners' strike that someone would have come up with such ideas.
If they'd thought of all these thing then perhaps they would not be patronised so often, even by people who probably know only a little about how the service is run nowadays.
I thought half the problem was plod saying that had too much paperwork to get out there and do their job? Or was it just complaints from the few who struggled with reading and writing?
I've got to say I'm looking at this thread with some confusion.
I work in an industry that has changed from civil service to semi-privatised. Over the past several years numbers, both budget and people have been cut. A lot of skilled people have been elbowed out deferred work brought forward.
The result is, officially successful.
Unofficially it is less good. More work, more pressure, pay and benefits cuts, outsourcing and disgruntled people. But, a lot of people can see light at the end of the tunnel. The people left are becoming the experts, with the dross being farmed out to subbies or eliminated. Another 5 to 10 years will be make or break, and more cuts in the interim.
If the privatisation of the police meant that the proper, sworn police were directed to investigate/solve/work at criminals directly with everything else being outsourced with the proper safeguards, then fine. Done properly, that should improve services and cut costs.
I don't see the government as being anti-police any more than they are anti-teachers, nurses, social workers or me. Everyone faced with cuts cries unfair and doom.
So, my question, are the police a special case?
I work in an industry that has changed from civil service to semi-privatised. Over the past several years numbers, both budget and people have been cut. A lot of skilled people have been elbowed out deferred work brought forward.
The result is, officially successful.
Unofficially it is less good. More work, more pressure, pay and benefits cuts, outsourcing and disgruntled people. But, a lot of people can see light at the end of the tunnel. The people left are becoming the experts, with the dross being farmed out to subbies or eliminated. Another 5 to 10 years will be make or break, and more cuts in the interim.
If the privatisation of the police meant that the proper, sworn police were directed to investigate/solve/work at criminals directly with everything else being outsourced with the proper safeguards, then fine. Done properly, that should improve services and cut costs.
I don't see the government as being anti-police any more than they are anti-teachers, nurses, social workers or me. Everyone faced with cuts cries unfair and doom.
So, my question, are the police a special case?
eldar said:
So, my question, are the police a special case?
They're the only case as far as social law enforcement goes, these comparisons can be a bit apples vs. oranges, and equally teachers are a special case, as are nurses and firemen. I don't think it's easy to generalise between them except the communality of 'public service'. Each on their merits.The issue that I see it is. You the taxpayer spend 2 billion on policing now. That 2 billion goes into policing. Maybe done savings done better things could be done.
You employ the oeuvre sector. Thatc2 billion minus profit goes on policing. Still better could be done.
Currently much criticism exists of revenue generation within the police. In the future with a private sector that's sole focus is profit the wont that be worse ?
If all these things and civilianisation can be done. Then why can't the forces run it ? Control it. Then that pr
You employ the oeuvre sector. Thatc2 billion minus profit goes on policing. Still better could be done.
Currently much criticism exists of revenue generation within the police. In the future with a private sector that's sole focus is profit the wont that be worse ?
If all these things and civilianisation can be done. Then why can't the forces run it ? Control it. Then that pr
The issue that I see it is. You the taxpayer spend 2 billion on policing now. That 2 billion goes into policing. Maybe done savings done better things could be done.
You employ the oeuvre sector. Thatc2 billion minus profit goes on policing. Still better could be done.
Currently much criticism exists of revenue generation within the police. In the future with a private sector that's sole focus is profit the wont that be worse ?
If all these things and civilianisation can be done. Then why can't the forces run it ? Control it. Then that profit is fed back in or used to reduce taxpayers burden.
What will be will be but I suggest that there is little to show private involvement in law enforcement has brought any real benefit other than financial.
I'm not inflexible or against civilianisation if certain functions. Or even whole series of functions.
However when it all comes on top any able bodied officer can be called to do any role. Those civilians can't.
You employ the oeuvre sector. Thatc2 billion minus profit goes on policing. Still better could be done.
Currently much criticism exists of revenue generation within the police. In the future with a private sector that's sole focus is profit the wont that be worse ?
If all these things and civilianisation can be done. Then why can't the forces run it ? Control it. Then that profit is fed back in or used to reduce taxpayers burden.
What will be will be but I suggest that there is little to show private involvement in law enforcement has brought any real benefit other than financial.
I'm not inflexible or against civilianisation if certain functions. Or even whole series of functions.
However when it all comes on top any able bodied officer can be called to do any role. Those civilians can't.
Personally I'd be looking at changing the while UK police structure.
Different levels of officers with different responsibilities and accountability and mirroring that with the justice system and courts.
Low level crime that's localised dealt with by local officers with local resolutions within the community but fast tracked.
Then looking at wider criminality and so forth. Id be looking at simplifying command structures and joining command teams, HR functions and IT. One system. I'd be getting rid of the countless projects each force runs that mirror those in others.
I'd unify roads policing, armed units etc we are already seeing some good work with helicopters and enduring better utilisation etc.
It's very long winded to go into on here. However I'm not precious about numbers of officers if the officers are doing the right jobs. There are many policing functions that we could employ people in that would assist warranted officers in their jobs.
Different levels of officers with different responsibilities and accountability and mirroring that with the justice system and courts.
Low level crime that's localised dealt with by local officers with local resolutions within the community but fast tracked.
Then looking at wider criminality and so forth. Id be looking at simplifying command structures and joining command teams, HR functions and IT. One system. I'd be getting rid of the countless projects each force runs that mirror those in others.
I'd unify roads policing, armed units etc we are already seeing some good work with helicopters and enduring better utilisation etc.
It's very long winded to go into on here. However I'm not precious about numbers of officers if the officers are doing the right jobs. There are many policing functions that we could employ people in that would assist warranted officers in their jobs.
eldar said:
I've got to say I'm looking at this thread with some confusion.
I work in an industry that has changed from civil service to semi-privatised. Over the past several years numbers, both budget and people have been cut. A lot of skilled people have been elbowed out deferred work brought forward.
The result is, officially successful.
Unofficially it is less good. More work, more pressure, pay and benefits cuts, outsourcing and disgruntled people. But, a lot of people can see light at the end of the tunnel. The people left are becoming the experts, with the dross being farmed out to subbies or eliminated. Another 5 to 10 years will be make or break, and more cuts in the interim.
If the privatisation of the police meant that the proper, sworn police were directed to investigate/solve/work at criminals directly with everything else being outsourced with the proper safeguards, then fine. Done properly, that should improve services and cut costs.
I don't see the government as being anti-police any more than they are anti-teachers, nurses, social workers or me. Everyone faced with cuts cries unfair and doom.
So, my question, are the police a special case?
Policing IS NOT a business or an industry.I work in an industry that has changed from civil service to semi-privatised. Over the past several years numbers, both budget and people have been cut. A lot of skilled people have been elbowed out deferred work brought forward.
The result is, officially successful.
Unofficially it is less good. More work, more pressure, pay and benefits cuts, outsourcing and disgruntled people. But, a lot of people can see light at the end of the tunnel. The people left are becoming the experts, with the dross being farmed out to subbies or eliminated. Another 5 to 10 years will be make or break, and more cuts in the interim.
If the privatisation of the police meant that the proper, sworn police were directed to investigate/solve/work at criminals directly with everything else being outsourced with the proper safeguards, then fine. Done properly, that should improve services and cut costs.
I don't see the government as being anti-police any more than they are anti-teachers, nurses, social workers or me. Everyone faced with cuts cries unfair and doom.
So, my question, are the police a special case?
Until Governments (and people) stop thinking it is, we're f
ked!Police Officers are have faced Hutton, Windsor part 1, Windsor Part 2 and more. All done in 18 months by a Government intent on destroying the Office of Constable. Police Officers have seen a sustained attack on their pay, their pensions and their working conditions. But it is not that what Officers are posting about. It is about a Government that is destroying our ability to tackle and deal with crime. It's bad now as teh cuts start to take effect. In two years it will be devastating.
I've heard the argument that it's only taking us back to the numbers of the early 1990s. That's fine. Except then we didn't have hundreds of new laws introduced by Politicians. We didn't have such massive Political interference. The Police weren't expected to clean up after every other 'specialist' organisation (mental health teams and Social Services in particular) say "nothing to do with us". And every Wayne and Waynetta didn't have a pay as you go mobile, complaining that they've been called a slag on Facebook.
The man currently inhabiting No 10 fills me with rage. I'm utterly ashamed I voted for him. I was duped. He conned his way in. Gordon bloody Brown is more of a Connservative than he is.
They are destroying our ability to Police. I cannot stress this strongly enougth. I'm pissed about my pay, my pension and my conditions. More importantly, I'm enraged about what they are doing to the Police Force
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe using retired officers isn't a good idea. A room full of Jackanories ranting on about their life's experiences in everything that's ever happened wouldn't result in much work getting done. Might lead to a spate of suicides which I guess could help with the cuts though.
I thought half the problem was plod saying that had too much paperwork to get out there and do their job? Or was it just complaints from the few who struggled with reading and writing?
Let us look at employing retired police officers from a good and bad point of view.I thought half the problem was plod saying that had too much paperwork to get out there and do their job? Or was it just complaints from the few who struggled with reading and writing?
Firstly training: good. Most have spent 25 - 30 years doing the same job.
Secondly wages: good, they work for basic plus 10%. You would be unlikely to get many literate recruits for that sort of money.
Thirdly, chatting in offices: according to my ex colleagues this is again good as most don't have offices.
On-costs: good. They use their own cars for the lowest mileage allowance.
Effective: again good as in many cases they know the persons they are dealing with.
Getting rid of ineffective staff: excellent. They are on short term contracts, or at least they used to be.
Willingness to try new systems: good. One good friend of mine started a system which actually saved more than his wages for the contracted period.
So, digs about illiteracy aside, the idea of using (not exclusively) retired police officers proved a total success story. Apart from when, of course, the police budget was cut by more than 20%. Something had to go and it was the contracted staff who were easier to shed and who would be easier to regain once recruitment started again in earnest, as we all know it will in time.
The complaints about too much paperwork are based in fact. A prisoner takes a PC off the street for a shift or more. There is much on the internet to show just how much paperwork is required.
The stories about PCs wanting to spend time in the nick rather than go out on the street is the invention of rags like the Daily Mail. Their journos don't believe it of course but many of their readers aparently do. Perhpas it is just the pathetically stupid ones.
I know I'll not convince you, DA, despite the fact that I spent 30 years in the job, and many of the other police officers and ex on here will tell the same, but the paperwork takes all the time. The police actually beat you to your suggestion - by some 25 years or more, in trying to limit the paperwork but the government, Home Office and other sundries interfere in processes they know nothing about, like some salesman trying to tell a doctor how to do an operation, and generate it all and then blame the police for being frightened of stepping out onto patrol.
I often think it is those who would be frightened of going out on patrol on their own, with little or no back up apart from innate common sense, who put these stories about. I can't believe that they actually believe the myth.
But as I say, I'm not writing this to convince the terminally prejudiced but hopefully it might make someone a bit more open-minded think again.
Not sure what the suicide dig is about. The one thing about people killing themselves is that it is not a cry for help you know. It means, as little else does, that they have reached the end of their tether. You'd know this if you were a police officer.
Derek Smith said:
The complaints about too much paperwork are based in fact. A prisoner takes a PC off the street for a shift or more. There is much on the internet to show just how much paperwork is required.
I've seen a few arrestees being booked in, it looks to be mostly computerised. Prisoner brought into the custody, sgt does basic valid arrest checks and verbals, fills in a few screens, more checks, search etc. and prisoner into cell. 90 minutes to 2 hours unless a queue, usually friday or saturday nights. I don't know what goes on after that, but for a simple DD or drink/drugs, what more does the arresting officer need to do?
eldar said:
I've seen a few arrestees being booked in, it looks to be mostly computerised. Prisoner brought into the custody, sgt does basic valid arrest checks and verbals, fills in a few screens, more checks, search etc. and prisoner into cell. 90 minutes to 2 hours unless a queue, usually friday or saturday nights.
I don't know what goes on after that, but for a simple DD or drink/drugs, what more does the arresting officer need to do?
Notebook. Use of force form. Penalty notice. Unless its a charge. Then. Mg4, 5 possibly 6. Mg 11. Front sheet. I don't know what goes on after that, but for a simple DD or drink/drugs, what more does the arresting officer need to do?
Copy and second file. Pnc prints x 2
Then back out.
If its any interviews etc then it's far more.
Simple jobs can be done in 2 hours. Sometimes quicker. However most jobs aren't always simple
eldar said:
Derek Smith said:
The complaints about too much paperwork are based in fact. A prisoner takes a PC off the street for a shift or more. There is much on the internet to show just how much paperwork is required.
I've seen a few arrestees being booked in, it looks to be mostly computerised. Prisoner brought into the custody, sgt does basic valid arrest checks and verbals, fills in a few screens, more checks, search etc. and prisoner into cell. 90 minutes to 2 hours unless a queue, usually friday or saturday nights. I don't know what goes on after that, but for a simple DD or drink/drugs, what more does the arresting officer need to do?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff