Police and Crime Commisioners Wow Just Wow
Discussion
La Liga said:
presume no guilt prior to a conviction
I'm glad we're in full accord.La Liga said:
I'm only interested in credible sources. From the factual things I can see he's doing the right things in his post and is the sort of CC we want leading the police.
If you're happy then so am I. May I ask what credible sources you've been looking at? I might take an interest & have a peek for myself.Alexis Jay's report talks of the police now being well-trained and well-resourced in the area of CSE. I am told by someone in SYP that things got moved forward and changed rather quickly once Crompton became the CC in this area in terms of awareness, training and it being a priority.
He's been very insistent on an independent review of the whole matter.
This is speculative, but I expect given the failings of people in high places, including the ex-Commissioner (on topic?), other officers and partners (Local Authority etc) there were little appetite to see him delve into this area in such a manner.
He did send an internal email about Hillsborough where the wording wasn't great, but overall he seems very supportive of the whole process to find the truth.
I'm happy to be critical, but I don't take the default, lazy and masked-as-savvy / astute view that anyone in a high position isn't there motivated by doing good.
He's been very insistent on an independent review of the whole matter.
This is speculative, but I expect given the failings of people in high places, including the ex-Commissioner (on topic?), other officers and partners (Local Authority etc) there were little appetite to see him delve into this area in such a manner.
He did send an internal email about Hillsborough where the wording wasn't great, but overall he seems very supportive of the whole process to find the truth.
I'm happy to be critical, but I don't take the default, lazy and masked-as-savvy / astute view that anyone in a high position isn't there motivated by doing good.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
The taxpayer should dictate court location by demanding the most efficient use of tax money. Justice tried and done in their area? How does that work with the Old Bailey and the RCJ?
It's the accused who needs to travel to where they offended, not the other way around. So now you have more cost by shipping the witnesses across to whatever part of the country the accused happens to be at (think of the costs of that). That'll really encourage witnesses, usually the most important part of a prosecution, to attend court and be willing to give evidence, won't it? V8 Fettler said:
Yes, I know that a national police force doesn't exist, I'm proposing that it should exist 
I know you knew it didn't, but it's practically irrelevant here, isn't it? V8 Fettler said:
Is it still possible for a search to be ruled unlawful during a trial? That's nonsensical, think of all the taxpayer's money that would be wasted if the trial then foundered. If the defence want to challenge a search then that should be dealt with by a judge before the costs of a trial escalate. And if the defence can't get it right pre-trial then why should they have a second attempt during the trial?
Why bother with juries at all? Why not just have people thrash everything out before and have a Judge decide guilt. It'll save the tax payer money, after all 
An accused has a fundamental right for any witness to be questioned in front of the people judging him or her. You may be happy to forego this right under some carte-blanche 'saving money' guise, but I don't think many would be. There are also reasons the prosecution may want all the witnesses present for a serious trial.
V8 Fettler said:
Why should a police force cross boundaries just because a case is high profile? There's no logic that, sounds like grandstanding at the taxpayer's expense to me.
It's perfectly logical and it's already been explained to you. There's less investigatory risk with fewer people involved, fewer property stores etc. Fewer people also = cheaper. Especially when it's probable they'll have to travel, and have hotel etc costs, resulting in a greater net expense. It's not hard to grasp. You can't have it both ways here. Complain about costs and what occurred, then when it's pointing out it is highly likely to be cheaper, fall-back on "well it should be changed". You're either critical at the practical level, or not.
It's nothing to do with "grandstanding"
It's about having local control of an investigation your team is responsible for for better control. V8 Fettler said:
Provided justice isn't compromised any more than it is currently, why shouldn't the rules be re-written if it saves taxpayer's money?
I agree with the principle, but not based on your assessment since you can't see the cost implications and have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evidence is disclosed and presented. V8 Fettler said:
Unfortunately, you are generally correct in stating that "those who do" pay little attention to the taxpayer. As an example, compare the costs of the procurement processes of the myriad insular little empires with the costs of procuring under a national contract.
Each force recruits according to its current demand and projections. Paper-sifting and assessments are done at the optimum scale so the costs are relatively fixed. National recruitment would cause localised issues i.e. a high-scoring skew down South doesn't help the Northern Constabularies who may have all the available spaces. What you see occurring in one sector doesn't transpose to another. If a national police force breaks down the insular little empires and creates savings for the taxpayer then that must be very relevant. Unless you're part of an insular little empire, then of course you'll want to undermine the proposal.
Re: abolition of juries. Calm down, you're getting emotional. I'm not suggesting that juries should be abolished; but where a judge can currently rule that a search is unlawful and thus - potentially - undermine a prosecution case with associated wasted costs to the taxpayer, why doesn't a judge validate or throwout the search evidence prior to the case? Thus saving the taxpayer's money.
In a well-managed system, why should more people = greater investigatory risk? Needs a well-managed system though. Local control over investigations? The abuse victims in South Yorks certainly didn't benefit from local control exercised by the insular little empire of SYP. See also Derek Smith's accounts of the failings of local control of the Met in years gone by.
I mentioned procurement, you responded with something about recruitment. Bizarre. Are you an aspiring politician? Please tell me you're not responsible for managing anything at the expense of my tax money.
There are some national contracts in place, but most police forces procure as individual forces; the management of contracts resulting from this procurement process is also - generally - managed on a local basis. Contract costs on a national basis would be perhaps 70% of similar contracts costed on a per force basis; additionally, procurement costs (on a national basis) would probably drop to approx 25% of current costs (or less). Substantial savings available here for the taxpayer.
V8 Fettler said:
1/ I'm not suggesting that juries should be abolished; but where a judge can currently rule that a search is unlawful and thus - potentially - undermine a prosecution case with associated wasted costs to the taxpayer, why doesn't a judge validate or throwout the search evidence prior to the case? Thus saving the taxpayer's money.
2/ See also Derek Smith's accounts of the failings of local control of the Met in years gone by.
3/ I mentioned procurement, you responded with something about recruitment. Bizarre. Are you an aspiring politician? Please tell me you're not responsible for managing anything at the expense of my tax money.
There are some national contracts in place, but most police forces procure as individual forces; the management of contracts resulting from this procurement process is also - generally - managed on a local basis. Contract costs on a national basis would be perhaps 70% of similar contracts costed on a per force basis; additionally, procurement costs (on a national basis) would probably drop to approx 25% of current costs (or less). Substantial savings available here for the taxpayer.
1/ What, like pre-trial hearings. Now there's a good idea. It makes you wonder why this was never thought of by those involved in trials.2/ See also Derek Smith's accounts of the failings of local control of the Met in years gone by.
3/ I mentioned procurement, you responded with something about recruitment. Bizarre. Are you an aspiring politician? Please tell me you're not responsible for managing anything at the expense of my tax money.
There are some national contracts in place, but most police forces procure as individual forces; the management of contracts resulting from this procurement process is also - generally - managed on a local basis. Contract costs on a national basis would be perhaps 70% of similar contracts costed on a per force basis; additionally, procurement costs (on a national basis) would probably drop to approx 25% of current costs (or less). Substantial savings available here for the taxpayer.
2/ The critical point is years gone by. Things have changed.
3/ So the government offers the contract to a private company to supply the police with equipment. The company pays a fortune for the privilege, and then supplies inferior quality cars, uniforms and such at more or less the same price. Yeah, I expect everyone sees that as a good idea. You go on about little empires. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that many forces have joined together to buy certain equipment - the type where savings can be made in bulk. Little empires of course.
Just love the figures 70%, 25%. There will be no savings. There never is.
In my time there was a national video ID process. My force decided to go our own way. The method we used was quicker - hours rather than days - and the cost of equipment and time was recouped in less than a year. So in other words our much quicker method came in at less than half the price. Further, going outside the little empire mold, our videos were shared with the other forces that came in with ours, cutting costs still further, although the savings were never costed.
The reason the government tried to force my force into compliance with the national video package was because they made a profit out of it.
As I've said before, you have absolutely no idea. Still, don't let that stop you putting forward your thoughts.
V8 Fettler said:
Re: accused travelling to where they offended. As above, how does this fit in with the high profile trials at the Old Bailey?
The accused will still travel to the Old Bailey, unless I'm mistaken and they do something different there (they don't). V8 Fettler said:
If a national police force breaks down the insular little empires and creates savings for the taxpayer then that must be very relevant. Unless you're part of an insular little empire, then of course you'll want to undermine the proposal.
A national police force can still be considered an 'insular little empire' - it won't become more true to more you say it. There will still be departments, geographical responsibility, teams travelling to other areas to keep control of the whole investigation and be economically efficient. I see you've dropped the part where you say these specific set of circumstances (the search) are likely to cost more - not the theoretical (if it were like this...) you keep switching between when suits, but the actual practical reality as to how things are now.
Why don't you acknowledge the search team and investigation is more probable to be more cost-effective based on the matter going to court?
V8 Fettler said:
I'm not suggesting that juries should be abolished; but where a judge can currently rule that a search is unlawful and thus - potentially - undermine a prosecution case with associated wasted costs to the taxpayer, why doesn't a judge validate or throwout the search evidence prior to the case? Thus saving the taxpayer's money.
The accused has a fundamental right to have the witnesses heard, no matter how minor their part. You may be willing to compromise this, I'm not. Do you not actually realise there's huge room between evidence which is admissible (and a Judge will allow), but is still to be tested by the court? It's not binary and simple, even if you want it to be.
V8 Fettler said:
In a well-managed system, why should more people = greater investigatory risk?
It shouldn't and probably wouldn't, but unless a collection of humans has suddenly become perfect, then that's the reality. V8 Fettler said:
Needs a well-managed system though. Local control over investigations? The abuse victims in South Yorks certainly didn't benefit from local control exercised by the insular little empire of SYP. See also Derek Smith's accounts of the failings of local control of the Met in years gone by.
Irrelevant examples to this specific example. There are clearly going to be many more examples of successful prosecutions by similar teams investigating similar allegations. The state is the only one who can join forces. There was a fair bit of support when New Labour spent time and money looking at merging forces. Hardly the attitude of insular thinking, no?
V8 Fettler said:
Please tell me you're not responsible for managing anything at the expense of my tax money.
Please don't tell me you don't step out of your area of competence so readily in your own industry. What is it you do? I can just make things up and tell you things will save money when I have no idea or experience of what I am talking about. V8 Fettler said:
There are some national contracts in place, but most police forces procure as individual forces; the management of contracts resulting from this procurement process is also - generally - managed on a local basis. Contract costs on a national basis would be perhaps 70% of similar contracts costed on a per force basis; additionally, procurement costs (on a national basis) would probably drop to approx 25% of current costs (or less). Substantial savings available here for the taxpayer.
I do agree with economies of scale, but there are local issues, it's not black and white. You've seem to assume I'm against larger forces and merging. Why's that?
Does it help to argue against a position I am not taking and stray from what you originally were saying that was wrong?
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Re: accused travelling to where they offended. As above, how does this fit in with the high profile trials at the Old Bailey?
The accused will still travel to the Old Bailey, unless I'm mistaken and they do something different there (they don't). V8 Fettler said:
If a national police force breaks down the insular little empires and creates savings for the taxpayer then that must be very relevant. Unless you're part of an insular little empire, then of course you'll want to undermine the proposal.
A national police force can still be considered an 'insular little empire' - it won't become more true to more you say it. There will still be departments, geographical responsibility, teams travelling to other areas to keep control of the whole investigation and be economically efficient. I see you've dropped the part where you say these specific set of circumstances (the search) are likely to cost more - not the theoretical (if it were like this...) you keep switching between when suits, but the actual practical reality as to how things are now.
Why don't you acknowledge the search team and investigation is more probable to be more cost-effective based on the matter going to court?
V8 Fettler said:
I'm not suggesting that juries should be abolished; but where a judge can currently rule that a search is unlawful and thus - potentially - undermine a prosecution case with associated wasted costs to the taxpayer, why doesn't a judge validate or throwout the search evidence prior to the case? Thus saving the taxpayer's money.
The accused has a fundamental right to have the witnesses heard, no matter how minor their part. You may be willing to compromise this, I'm not. Do you not actually realise there's huge room between evidence which is admissible (and a Judge will allow), but is still to be tested by the court? It's not binary and simple, even if you want it to be.
V8 Fettler said:
In a well-managed system, why should more people = greater investigatory risk?
It shouldn't and probably wouldn't, but unless a collection of humans has suddenly become perfect, then that's the reality. V8 Fettler said:
Needs a well-managed system though. Local control over investigations? The abuse victims in South Yorks certainly didn't benefit from local control exercised by the insular little empire of SYP. See also Derek Smith's accounts of the failings of local control of the Met in years gone by.
Irrelevant examples to this specific example. There are clearly going to be many more examples of successful prosecutions by similar teams investigating similar allegations. The state is the only one who can join forces. There was a fair bit of support when New Labour spent time and money looking at merging forces. Hardly the attitude of insular thinking, no?
V8 Fettler said:
Please tell me you're not responsible for managing anything at the expense of my tax money.
Please don't tell me you don't step out of your area of competence so readily in your own industry. What is it you do? I can just make things up and tell you things will save money when I have no idea or experience of what I am talking about. V8 Fettler said:
There are some national contracts in place, but most police forces procure as individual forces; the management of contracts resulting from this procurement process is also - generally - managed on a local basis. Contract costs on a national basis would be perhaps 70% of similar contracts costed on a per force basis; additionally, procurement costs (on a national basis) would probably drop to approx 25% of current costs (or less). Substantial savings available here for the taxpayer.
I do agree with economies of scale, but there are local issues, it's not black and white. You've seem to assume I'm against larger forces and merging. Why's that?
Does it help to argue against a position I am not taking and stray from what you originally were saying that was wrong?
Insular little empires (and insular big empires) take years/decades to develop, a national police force will allow a clean start and permit easy geographical movement of staff to reduce insularity and dismantle empires.
Back to the search issue then: in my opinion, the most cost effective method to search Cliff Richard's residence in Berkshire would have been to use local police, then transfer the evidence via secure courier to South Yorks. Would need good management skills though to ensure a smooth transition of evidence and to ensure continuity, which is probably the issue.
What is the point of hearing witnesses giving evidence with regards to a search if the search is subsequently ruled as unlawful by the judge? Illogical and a waste of money.
The failure of SYP to prevent the child abuse scandal in the Rotherham area is directly relevant to this thread, see the first post. Local control clearly failed, as did local control of the Met in Derek's time there. Insular little empires that aren't sufficiently accountable to taxpayer rely on local control.
New Labour may have looked at merging forces, didn't happen though.
Are you stating that you step out of your area of professional competence? Not something I would do: possible prosecution, potential litigation, professional indemnity cover at risk. What professional background do I have with relevance to this thread? Is it willy-waving time? Taxpayer (that's the most important thing), competitive tendering (both nationally and locally), developing national and local frameworks. I have no real interest in your professional experience, but some of your erratic responses concern me.
Local issues can be resolved within a national structure, needs good management skills though.
Are you therefore in favour of a national police force?
Derek Smith said:
1/ What, like pre-trial hearings. Now there's a good idea. It makes you wonder why this was never thought of by those involved in trials.
2/ The critical point is years gone by. Things have changed.
3/ So the government offers the contract to a private company to supply the police with equipment. The company pays a fortune for the privilege, and then supplies inferior quality cars, uniforms and such at more or less the same price. Yeah, I expect everyone sees that as a good idea. You go on about little empires. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that many forces have joined together to buy certain equipment - the type where savings can be made in bulk. Little empires of course.
Just love the figures 70%, 25%. There will be no savings. There never is.
In my time there was a national video ID process. My force decided to go our own way. The method we used was quicker - hours rather than days - and the cost of equipment and time was recouped in less than a year. So in other words our much quicker method came in at less than half the price. Further, going outside the little empire mold, our videos were shared with the other forces that came in with ours, cutting costs still further, although the savings were never costed.
The reason the government tried to force my force into compliance with the national video package was because they made a profit out of it.
As I've said before, you have absolutely no idea. Still, don't let that stop you putting forward your thoughts.
A refreshing lack of post dissection!2/ The critical point is years gone by. Things have changed.
3/ So the government offers the contract to a private company to supply the police with equipment. The company pays a fortune for the privilege, and then supplies inferior quality cars, uniforms and such at more or less the same price. Yeah, I expect everyone sees that as a good idea. You go on about little empires. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that many forces have joined together to buy certain equipment - the type where savings can be made in bulk. Little empires of course.
Just love the figures 70%, 25%. There will be no savings. There never is.
In my time there was a national video ID process. My force decided to go our own way. The method we used was quicker - hours rather than days - and the cost of equipment and time was recouped in less than a year. So in other words our much quicker method came in at less than half the price. Further, going outside the little empire mold, our videos were shared with the other forces that came in with ours, cutting costs still further, although the savings were never costed.
The reason the government tried to force my force into compliance with the national video package was because they made a profit out of it.
As I've said before, you have absolutely no idea. Still, don't let that stop you putting forward your thoughts.
1/. The point is Derek, if a judge can rule a search unlawful at the pre-trial then why - on occasions - is the trial allowed to proceed prior to the search being ruled unlawful? Should there not be a logical order to this? To save the taxpayer money?
2/. Unfortunately, it seems to take years or decades for control issues to become apparent, see Hillsborough. Who knows what's going to turn up next.
3/. A company pays for the privilege of supplying cars and uniforms to the police? When did that happen? I am aware that there are some national contracts in place, hence my comment re: national contracts being in place.
In my experience, the 70% and 20% figures are conservative, but certainly ballpark.
I've no idea about what? And when is the next book coming out?
V8 Fettler said:
A refreshing lack of post dissection!
1/. The point is Derek, if a judge can rule a search unlawful at the pre-trial then why - on occasions - is the trial allowed to proceed prior to the search being ruled unlawful? Should there not be a logical order to this? To save the taxpayer money?
2/. Unfortunately, it seems to take years or decades for control issues to become apparent, see Hillsborough. Who knows what's going to turn up next.
3/. A company pays for the privilege of supplying cars and uniforms to the police? When did that happen? I am aware that there are some national contracts in place, hence my comment re: national contracts being in place.
In my experience, the 70% and 20% figures are conservative, but certainly ballpark.
I've no idea about what? And when is the next book coming out?
1/ The point is that the problem with the search might be something for the jury to decide on. Actions by the police are often challenged in court despite them being entirely legal. I was at court 35 times in two years - that's a senior inspector's time taken up, once for three days - to have my ID evidence challenged. Not once was my evidence ruled inadmissable. 1/. The point is Derek, if a judge can rule a search unlawful at the pre-trial then why - on occasions - is the trial allowed to proceed prior to the search being ruled unlawful? Should there not be a logical order to this? To save the taxpayer money?
2/. Unfortunately, it seems to take years or decades for control issues to become apparent, see Hillsborough. Who knows what's going to turn up next.
3/. A company pays for the privilege of supplying cars and uniforms to the police? When did that happen? I am aware that there are some national contracts in place, hence my comment re: national contracts being in place.
In my experience, the 70% and 20% figures are conservative, but certainly ballpark.
I've no idea about what? And when is the next book coming out?
At one time the whole defence was based around a misinterpretation of the Codes of Practice for ID procedures and once I gave my evidence the plea changed to guilty.
Another time I ran an ID parade for Kent - I was Sussex - for reasons I won't bore you with, and had to go from Brighton to Maidstone CC for two days, giving evidence in the second day from 10.15am until 16.25, with an 90 min break in between. Yet, though I say it myself, the parade was impeccable.
There were superintendent level discussions as to whether I should run it or not due solely to the costs.
The defence knew the parade could not be challenged on procedures but needed to try anything as the evidence was solid. Procedures are the 'easy-out' when it is obvious the bloke is guilty.
2/ You quote Hillsboro' as if it was all done and dusted. If your are following the current enquiry you will know that some things which have been accepted are, in fact, up for grabs. It is only the prejudiced who can be convinced at this time.
3/ You seem unaware that many companies have contracts to supply goods 'cross borders'.
In my force we used to buy end of run cars and vans, not to mention other equipment, once in conjunction with Surrey. Motor manufacturers used to come knocking on our door so to speak. If they had over-produced the prices would drop. The police cars were often pre-facelift models just because they were getting rid of old stock. You seem to be suggesting wanton waste. There was none of that in my force for the items that central buying would suit. Uniforms were bought together with other forces which needed the same items as we did. Bulk buying from a state-supplied source will not be any lower when you consider that they've got to make a profit and, of course, pay off the price of the contract.
My force bought oil in bulk, sometimes saving £000s in the process.
Going back to the process that I was intimately involved in, the supply of video IDs, I think it is a nice little microcosm of the process of central purchasing. Here we had a company contracted to complete a specific process. If you were in the Met is was OK, you could go and pick up the product and that was what the timing was based on. For the rest of us, it was a case of posting. So speed was not of the essence.
You could purchase faster videos, even having it delivered by courier, but firstly, that delayed all the other 'non-urgent' stuff, although there were time limits to some processes, and secondly, it cost extra.
The process I brought into my force was based on one which was started in another force but was brought to a stop by the HO. Our CC was more robust and supported my initiative. Some suggest that the main/significant reason Video Film Identification was brought in as the prime process was because, unlike line-ups, the government earned from it. I don't know.
Yet in the first year I saved on the whole budget for VFIs, although I ran more than the original estimate. This included buying two dedicated computers, the software, paying for training and other on-costs. The following year, the joke was, we'd be in profit. Yet because we were not going through a central purchasing process we were harried by the Home Office. HMIC were more or less supportive, but that was before it was politicised by Cameron by putting Winsor in charge so I doubt it would happen now.
The HMIC noticed that a particular force spent more than average of confidential waste disposal. Checking with other forces it was found that they contracted it out whilst this particular force did it in house. So the force was ordered to contract out their confidential waste disposal. To save vast amounts of money.
However, this particular force had special responsibilities for certain secret processes and this particular department felt, quite rightly, that their waste was rather dangerous so that was kept in house. Another officer discovered that in his particular department the DPA did not allow certain documents to be handled by anyone not controlled by his unit.
So you can guess what happened. The internal confidential wast disposal unit was kept and the contract for external disposal was an utter waste of money and should have been disposed of.
Shocking though it might seem, sometimes the police do things for a purpose. The HMIC had no idea of the restrictions placed on the particular departments mentioned so obviously thought that it was wanton waste. They had no idea. Do you see what I mean by that now?
The next book - A Tour de Forces - was to be published in the summer. In the summer of 2013, but I got two new writing contracts and since then I've had a number of others. At the moment I appear to be persona non grata - although I've just ended a contract early because of a disagreement with the boss so have a little extra time. I've got another book just about to have its second edition (anyone thinking of buying or who owns an SLK, PM me) and then it is back to ATdF. Perhaps by Christmas.
Thanks for asking.
V8 Fettler said:
But if the crimes did not occur in the South East then why the Old Bailey? Completely contradicts your theory of local courts for local crimes.
No it doesn't. The vast majority of trials are held in the area the crime occurred. It doesn't need to occur every time for this to be a working principle. I said in my first mention of it there are exceptions. V8 Fettler said:
Insular little empires (and insular big empires) take years/decades to develop, a national police force will allow a clean start and permit easy geographical movement of staff to reduce insularity and dismantle empires.
There are advantages to it, but again, you're positioning me as being against it and arguing against points I'm not making. V8 Fettler said:
Back to the search issue then: in my opinion, the most cost effective method to search Cliff Richard's residence in Berkshire would have been to use local police, then transfer the evidence via secure courier to South Yorks.
But the officers are more probable to be called than not if there's a court case, which costs more. A probable cost / benefit assessment, by anyone logical, working to how things actually are (not how things theoretically could be, or making up new laws etc), would make this assessment. V8 Fettler said:
What is the point of hearing witnesses giving evidence with regards to a search if the search is subsequently ruled as unlawful by the judge? Illogical and a waste of money.
It can be perfectly lawful and the defence still want to question the people involved. The same applies to any evidence. V8 Fettler said:
The failure of SYP to prevent the child abuse scandal in the Rotherham area is directly relevant to this thread, see the first post. Local control clearly failed, as did local control of the Met in Derek's time there. Insular little empires that aren't sufficiently accountable to taxpayer rely on local control.
More strawman. V8 Fettler said:
Are you stating that you step out of your area of professional competence? Not something I would do: possible prosecution, potential litigation, professional indemnity cover at risk. What professional background do I have with relevance to this thread?
Because it shows why you're unable to make an assessment as to the probable cost / benefit of the search team being sent down and are slurring it with strawman stuff around theoretical "ifs and buts". You apparently have little idea how criminal courts work, which is why you're making it up as you go along. If it's more likely to cost more by involving another Constabulary then it's likely to cost more. It's as simple as that for this scenario. You're starting off saying it was a bad use of money, and 'insular little empires' ad infinitum, doesn't affect that. Nor does all the "well if it were like this wah wah" irrelevant, theoretical stuff.
Simply distilling it down in these specific circumstances, more officers being called to court, especially when out of their areas = costs more money. Nothing you can say changes that reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-2935687...
I wonder how many 'promotional' trinkets the sole attendee bagged?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28212462
Transport links aren't that great once you get past Bristol so perhaps people had trouble getting to the venue? But then again several high ranking police officers managed to make their way there.
I'm imagining the high ranking police officers carrying a few boxes of promotional trinkets to the venue and then out from the venue again to be returned to the boot of the car.
I think some police officers may find those promotional trinkets ideal stocking fillers but it's far from my place to suggest they commit any theft.
I'm remembering that scene with Ann Barnes PCC for Kent sitting the two applicants for the role of Chief Constable of Kent down with a map of Kent behind her on the wall and pointing out the geography of Kent and the coastline.
Perhaps there needs to be a league table for the most comedic coastal police force? It could be a Devon & Cornwall versus Kent police final? If Devon & Cornwall police merge with Dorset police then that could make such competitions a foregone conclusion.
From a glass half full perspective at least he may now know what it's like for PCSOs and PCs to stage such public engagement events and have nobody turn up, though one could wonder if some of those are at times when most people would be at work and therefore not in their neighbourhoods to be able to attend such public engagement meetings?
I wonder how many 'promotional' trinkets the sole attendee bagged?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28212462
Transport links aren't that great once you get past Bristol so perhaps people had trouble getting to the venue? But then again several high ranking police officers managed to make their way there.
I'm imagining the high ranking police officers carrying a few boxes of promotional trinkets to the venue and then out from the venue again to be returned to the boot of the car.
I think some police officers may find those promotional trinkets ideal stocking fillers but it's far from my place to suggest they commit any theft.
I'm remembering that scene with Ann Barnes PCC for Kent sitting the two applicants for the role of Chief Constable of Kent down with a map of Kent behind her on the wall and pointing out the geography of Kent and the coastline.
Perhaps there needs to be a league table for the most comedic coastal police force? It could be a Devon & Cornwall versus Kent police final? If Devon & Cornwall police merge with Dorset police then that could make such competitions a foregone conclusion.
From a glass half full perspective at least he may now know what it's like for PCSOs and PCs to stage such public engagement events and have nobody turn up, though one could wonder if some of those are at times when most people would be at work and therefore not in their neighbourhoods to be able to attend such public engagement meetings?
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 25th September 17:00
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
A refreshing lack of post dissection!
1/. The point is Derek, if a judge can rule a search unlawful at the pre-trial then why - on occasions - is the trial allowed to proceed prior to the search being ruled unlawful? Should there not be a logical order to this? To save the taxpayer money?
2/. Unfortunately, it seems to take years or decades for control issues to become apparent, see Hillsborough. Who knows what's going to turn up next.
3/. A company pays for the privilege of supplying cars and uniforms to the police? When did that happen? I am aware that there are some national contracts in place, hence my comment re: national contracts being in place.
In my experience, the 70% and 20% figures are conservative, but certainly ballpark.
I've no idea about what? And when is the next book coming out?
1/ The point is that the problem with the search might be something for the jury to decide on. Actions by the police are often challenged in court despite them being entirely legal. I was at court 35 times in two years - that's a senior inspector's time taken up, once for three days - to have my ID evidence challenged. Not once was my evidence ruled inadmissable. 1/. The point is Derek, if a judge can rule a search unlawful at the pre-trial then why - on occasions - is the trial allowed to proceed prior to the search being ruled unlawful? Should there not be a logical order to this? To save the taxpayer money?
2/. Unfortunately, it seems to take years or decades for control issues to become apparent, see Hillsborough. Who knows what's going to turn up next.
3/. A company pays for the privilege of supplying cars and uniforms to the police? When did that happen? I am aware that there are some national contracts in place, hence my comment re: national contracts being in place.
In my experience, the 70% and 20% figures are conservative, but certainly ballpark.
I've no idea about what? And when is the next book coming out?
At one time the whole defence was based around a misinterpretation of the Codes of Practice for ID procedures and once I gave my evidence the plea changed to guilty.
Another time I ran an ID parade for Kent - I was Sussex - for reasons I won't bore you with, and had to go from Brighton to Maidstone CC for two days, giving evidence in the second day from 10.15am until 16.25, with an 90 min break in between. Yet, though I say it myself, the parade was impeccable.
There were superintendent level discussions as to whether I should run it or not due solely to the costs.
The defence knew the parade could not be challenged on procedures but needed to try anything as the evidence was solid. Procedures are the 'easy-out' when it is obvious the bloke is guilty.
2/ You quote Hillsboro' as if it was all done and dusted. If your are following the current enquiry you will know that some things which have been accepted are, in fact, up for grabs. It is only the prejudiced who can be convinced at this time.
3/ You seem unaware that many companies have contracts to supply goods 'cross borders'.
In my force we used to buy end of run cars and vans, not to mention other equipment, once in conjunction with Surrey. Motor manufacturers used to come knocking on our door so to speak. If they had over-produced the prices would drop. The police cars were often pre-facelift models just because they were getting rid of old stock. You seem to be suggesting wanton waste. There was none of that in my force for the items that central buying would suit. Uniforms were bought together with other forces which needed the same items as we did. Bulk buying from a state-supplied source will not be any lower when you consider that they've got to make a profit and, of course, pay off the price of the contract.
My force bought oil in bulk, sometimes saving £000s in the process.
Going back to the process that I was intimately involved in, the supply of video IDs, I think it is a nice little microcosm of the process of central purchasing. Here we had a company contracted to complete a specific process. If you were in the Met is was OK, you could go and pick up the product and that was what the timing was based on. For the rest of us, it was a case of posting. So speed was not of the essence.
You could purchase faster videos, even having it delivered by courier, but firstly, that delayed all the other 'non-urgent' stuff, although there were time limits to some processes, and secondly, it cost extra.
The process I brought into my force was based on one which was started in another force but was brought to a stop by the HO. Our CC was more robust and supported my initiative. Some suggest that the main/significant reason Video Film Identification was brought in as the prime process was because, unlike line-ups, the government earned from it. I don't know.
Yet in the first year I saved on the whole budget for VFIs, although I ran more than the original estimate. This included buying two dedicated computers, the software, paying for training and other on-costs. The following year, the joke was, we'd be in profit. Yet because we were not going through a central purchasing process we were harried by the Home Office. HMIC were more or less supportive, but that was before it was politicised by Cameron by putting Winsor in charge so I doubt it would happen now.
The HMIC noticed that a particular force spent more than average of confidential waste disposal. Checking with other forces it was found that they contracted it out whilst this particular force did it in house. So the force was ordered to contract out their confidential waste disposal. To save vast amounts of money.
However, this particular force had special responsibilities for certain secret processes and this particular department felt, quite rightly, that their waste was rather dangerous so that was kept in house. Another officer discovered that in his particular department the DPA did not allow certain documents to be handled by anyone not controlled by his unit.
So you can guess what happened. The internal confidential wast disposal unit was kept and the contract for external disposal was an utter waste of money and should have been disposed of.
Shocking though it might seem, sometimes the police do things for a purpose. The HMIC had no idea of the restrictions placed on the particular departments mentioned so obviously thought that it was wanton waste. They had no idea. Do you see what I mean by that now?
The next book - A Tour de Forces - was to be published in the summer. In the summer of 2013, but I got two new writing contracts and since then I've had a number of others. At the moment I appear to be persona non grata - although I've just ended a contract early because of a disagreement with the boss so have a little extra time. I've got another book just about to have its second edition (anyone thinking of buying or who owns an SLK, PM me) and then it is back to ATdF. Perhaps by Christmas.
Thanks for asking.
1/. If the search had been ruled as lawful prior to the trial, think how much time you would have saved. More importantly, think of how much taxpayer's money would have been saved. My understanding is that the jury cannot rule a search as unlawful, only a judge can do that.
2/. I quoted Hillsborough as the exact opposite to "done and dusted", it was to demonstrate that we cannot know if ">The critical point is years gone by. Things have changed.<"
3/. For the third time, I recognise that there are national contracts.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
But if the crimes did not occur in the South East then why the Old Bailey? Completely contradicts your theory of local courts for local crimes.
No it doesn't. The vast majority of trials are held in the area the crime occurred. It doesn't need to occur every time for this to be a working principle. I said in my first mention of it there are exceptions. V8 Fettler said:
Insular little empires (and insular big empires) take years/decades to develop, a national police force will allow a clean start and permit easy geographical movement of staff to reduce insularity and dismantle empires.
There are advantages to it, but again, you're positioning me as being against it and arguing against points I'm not making. V8 Fettler said:
Back to the search issue then: in my opinion, the most cost effective method to search Cliff Richard's residence in Berkshire would have been to use local police, then transfer the evidence via secure courier to South Yorks.
But the officers are more probable to be called than not if there's a court case, which costs more. A probable cost / benefit assessment, by anyone logical, working to how things actually are (not how things theoretically could be, or making up new laws etc), would make this assessment. V8 Fettler said:
What is the point of hearing witnesses giving evidence with regards to a search if the search is subsequently ruled as unlawful by the judge? Illogical and a waste of money.
It can be perfectly lawful and the defence still want to question the people involved. The same applies to any evidence. V8 Fettler said:
The failure of SYP to prevent the child abuse scandal in the Rotherham area is directly relevant to this thread, see the first post. Local control clearly failed, as did local control of the Met in Derek's time there. Insular little empires that aren't sufficiently accountable to taxpayer rely on local control.
More strawman. V8 Fettler said:
Are you stating that you step out of your area of professional competence? Not something I would do: possible prosecution, potential litigation, professional indemnity cover at risk. What professional background do I have with relevance to this thread?
Because it shows why you're unable to make an assessment as to the probable cost / benefit of the search team being sent down and are slurring it with strawman stuff around theoretical "ifs and buts". You apparently have little idea how criminal courts work, which is why you're making it up as you go along. If it's more likely to cost more by involving another Constabulary then it's likely to cost more. It's as simple as that for this scenario. You're starting off saying it was a bad use of money, and 'insular little empires' ad infinitum, doesn't affect that. Nor does all the "well if it were like this wah wah" irrelevant, theoretical stuff.
Simply distilling it down in these specific circumstances, more officers being called to court, especially when out of their areas = costs more money. Nothing you can say changes that reality.
In the real world, your concept of local courts for local crimes should only be valid for cost reasons. It appears to be a historical concept based on the justice of the pitchfork.
I'm pleased that you see advantages in a national police force.
Where a little insular empire sends representatives to another little insular empire, are the cost/benefit assessments within the public domain for perusal at a later date?
There may be questioning of witnesses, but how can the situation arise where a search is ruled unlawful during a trial? Prior to a trial, the defence should indicate if they intend to challenge the lawfulness of the search, the judge could then rule on the lawfulness of the search prior to the trial instead of an ambush arising during the trial, thus potentially saving taxpayer's money. My understanding is that the jury cannot rule a search as unlawful.
The Rotherham scandal is far from strawman, it demonstrates the perils of local, insular empires. In my view, the failings in Rotherham are more serious than the corruption issues in the Met late 1970s/early 1980s, if only because the victims were more vulnerable. The Rotherham scandal dramatically undermines the case for local, insular empires.
Again, are the assessments of the cost/benefits for search teams within the public domain? I have some knowledge of the courts process, but I wouldn't declare myself to be an expert, are you?
In my experience, there is a common thread that runs through all little insular empires: a proportion of the inhabitants will vociferously complain that "Only we know how it's done" and that on that basis they will claim that there can be no meaningful change because the age-old procedures are "how it's done". In reality, change management doesn't need detailed knowledge of procedures at senior management level, but it does need a willing and compliant workforce, which is probably why there will be little meaningful change in the policing of the UK within any reasonable timeframe.
V8 Fettler said:
In the real world, your concept of local courts for local crimes should only be valid for cost reasons. It appears to be a historical concept based on the justice of the pitchfork.
Just because you don't consider it valid doesn't mean others do not. V8 Fettler said:
There may be questioning of witnesses, but how can the situation arise where a search is ruled unlawful during a trial? Prior to a trial, the defence should indicate if they intend to challenge the lawfulness of the search, the judge could then rule on the lawfulness of the search prior to the trial instead of an ambush arising during the trial, thus potentially saving taxpayer's money. My understanding is that the jury cannot rule a search as unlawful.
Legal and technical issues pre-trial don't reduce the probability of the officers being called, in a prior probabilities / base rate sense, to court for a major crown court trial. I know someone who has a minor role in a Crown Court trial. He's been put on standby for a month. Imagine a whole external search team being put on standby for that period of time in a force miles away. Get it?
That's the reality of how things are. It perhaps shouldn't occur, and perhaps there are better solutions. But we're not talking about hypothetical, we're talking about the decisions SYP made in the environment operates now. The environment where things like the above example can and do occur, regularly.
V8 Fettler said:
The Rotherham scandal is far from strawman, it demonstrates the perils of local, insular empires. In my view, the failings in Rotherham are more serious than the corruption issues in the Met late 1970s/early 1980s, if only because the victims were more vulnerable. The Rotherham scandal dramatically undermines the case for local, insular empires.
It has nothing to do with the decisions made we've been talking about. V8 Fettler said:
Again, are the assessments of the cost/benefits for search teams within the public domain? I have some knowledge of the courts process, but I wouldn't declare myself to be an expert, are you?
Yes, it's a really comprehensive document... It goes like this:1) If we send 7 of our officers to do the search for a trial in our area and investigation we own, how much time is that?
2) If we take the time to set-up a out-of-force search team and they are called the court, how much does it cost with overnight stay, mutual aid etc cost us and the other force?
3) The probability of 2) occurring justifies 1).
V8 Fettler said:
In my experience, there is a common thread that runs through all little insular empires: a proportion of the inhabitants will vociferously complain that "Only we know how it's done" and that on that basis they will claim that there can be no meaningful change.
No one's arguing about that. It's strawman. We're arguing that you're wrong when you claimed that the way things were done were less cost effective in the environment and circumstances as they are now, not as they could or should be if you waved a magic wand. V8 Fettler said:
why there will be little meaningful change in the policing of the UK within any reasonable timeframe.
The police respond to emergencies and deal with prisoners, so much so we have prisons that are constantly at near capacity. If you want to take a strategic view of risk reduction from state-level, there are far more pressing areas for time and money to spent on reform to reduce risk and harm to society. It's fundamentally not broken, so doesn't need fixing. Change for change sake masked under the illusion of progress.
I think you need to write "insular little empires" more in your posts, too. Is it from some crap management book of phrases you can use at meetings to sound good?
La Liga said:
I think you need to write "insular little empires" more in your posts, too. Is it from some crap management book of phrases you can use at meetings to sound good?
Insular little empires are one way of maintaining control and concealing wrongdoing.Surely the corrupt officers that gave Derek Smith the opportunity to run with them were an 'insular little empire'?
Of course all corrupt police officers became extinct sometime in the last century.
'Insular little empires'? Cyril Smith in Rochdale? Whatever nonsense Shaun Wright and Joyce Thacker were presiding over in Rotherham? The Tower Hamlets 'I predict a riot' election?
The fact is that all large organisations have insular little empires, both private and public sector.
Whether these are formally a discrete part of the organisation or a networked connection of cronies with a common outside bond (club/association) or indeed some loose outside connection with a common purpose to mutual benefit / aims matters not. They exist in virtually all areas and in all sizes of empire.
Flat out failure to accept these empires exist suggests that you're part of the problem.
End and Out.
Whether these are formally a discrete part of the organisation or a networked connection of cronies with a common outside bond (club/association) or indeed some loose outside connection with a common purpose to mutual benefit / aims matters not. They exist in virtually all areas and in all sizes of empire.
Flat out failure to accept these empires exist suggests that you're part of the problem.
End and Out.
FiF said:
The fact is that all large organisations have insular little empires, both private and public sector.
Whether these are formally a discrete part of the organisation or a networked connection of cronies with a common outside bond (club/association) or indeed some loose outside connection with a common purpose to mutual benefit / aims matters not. They exist in virtually all areas and in all sizes of empire.
Flat out failure to accept these empires exist suggests that you're part of the problem.
End and Out.
Who is arguing they don't? Whether these are formally a discrete part of the organisation or a networked connection of cronies with a common outside bond (club/association) or indeed some loose outside connection with a common purpose to mutual benefit / aims matters not. They exist in virtually all areas and in all sizes of empire.
Flat out failure to accept these empires exist suggests that you're part of the problem.
End and Out.
I love the idea that scale somehow irons them out. As if you won't get 'silo-mentality' within specialist / geographical areas just because you wear the same name as someone 300 miles away.
Of course scale is an issue
It's difficult to have a insular little empire that has a possibly tangential agenda within a single trader organisation for example.
Or a two man partnership. One of the partners may have an alternate agenda but it's hardly an empire.
Of course it opens up the argument over the semantics of what's a big organisation but in the context of the discussion it's relevant. Won't stop your tiresome last wordism.
It's difficult to have a insular little empire that has a possibly tangential agenda within a single trader organisation for example.
Or a two man partnership. One of the partners may have an alternate agenda but it's hardly an empire.
Of course it opens up the argument over the semantics of what's a big organisation but in the context of the discussion it's relevant. Won't stop your tiresome last wordism.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff