Police and Crime Commisioners Wow Just Wow
Discussion
Clearly it went without saying we were not including obvious extremes... Why not mention sole traders not having issues with themselves, too?
The presentation it's a magic bullet (apparently it's certain the CSE issues in South Yorks wouldn't have occurred) and that similar / the same issues won't occur is naive and simplistic.
The presentation it's a magic bullet (apparently it's certain the CSE issues in South Yorks wouldn't have occurred) and that similar / the same issues won't occur is naive and simplistic.
Not true. I am happy to look at other people's views, and change my own if people actually present evidence. Just saying something doesn't make it true. You assert, you prove. The CSE in Rotherham is a complex web of issues. Saying that the scale of SYP and the others involved somehow made it so, and that larger scale would somehow have avoided it, is a little simplistic and opportunistic, no? The Met is 10x larger and they still have issues.
People are far too willing to pass off 'facts' about crime / disorder / the law / courts / police / CPS without actually having any idea, knowledge or experience of these things. When someone writes, "sending 7 officers to search is a bad use of my tax money they should have got the local force to do it", when it's actually probable to be the opposite, then they should be corrected. If they wish to make a sideshow away the practicalities of that statement with everything from, theory, hypothetical, sweeping top-of-the-head changes to the law and courts, procedures procurement, scale and mentioning "insular little empires" until it becomes the most boring phrase ever created, then that's down to them.
You don't see me go into the "tents, caravans and motorhomes" sub-forum and start telling people who've actually know about the subject 'how it is'. That's because I have practically no experience or knowledge of those things. And if I did and someone said, "no, this is how it is and why", I wouldn't be so egotistical or stubborn to not be corrected.
People are far too willing to pass off 'facts' about crime / disorder / the law / courts / police / CPS without actually having any idea, knowledge or experience of these things. When someone writes, "sending 7 officers to search is a bad use of my tax money they should have got the local force to do it", when it's actually probable to be the opposite, then they should be corrected. If they wish to make a sideshow away the practicalities of that statement with everything from, theory, hypothetical, sweeping top-of-the-head changes to the law and courts, procedures procurement, scale and mentioning "insular little empires" until it becomes the most boring phrase ever created, then that's down to them.
You don't see me go into the "tents, caravans and motorhomes" sub-forum and start telling people who've actually know about the subject 'how it is'. That's because I have practically no experience or knowledge of those things. And if I did and someone said, "no, this is how it is and why", I wouldn't be so egotistical or stubborn to not be corrected.
La Liga said:
Clearly it went without saying we were not including obvious extremes... Why not mention sole traders not having issues with themselves, too?
The presentation it's a magic bullet (apparently it's certain the CSE issues in South Yorks wouldn't have occurred) and that similar / the same issues won't occur is naive and simplistic.
Clearly you missed the comment about all areas and all sizes or just chose to ignore it.The presentation it's a magic bullet (apparently it's certain the CSE issues in South Yorks wouldn't have occurred) and that similar / the same issues won't occur is naive and simplistic.
The snide dismissal of the phrase relating to insular empires as some sort of management bs bingo type phrase suggests to me that the concept of the existence of the same is being ridiculed. Then if note if that is the case then you are part of the problem. If not then who knows what your problem is.
Out.
I accept it exists (I've made reference to silo-mentality existing on various scales). I don't accept it's the simple solution to examples provided, and I don't care for it to be used as a side-issue to sidetrack an incorrect criticism of an operational decision made in the environment as it stands now.
I am happy for forces to merge - especially smaller ones. I'm not completely sold on a national force but am open to it if it's supported by evidence.
In no point in the thread have I said I'm against either. There's already a lot of collaboration in terms of corporate functions e.g. forces sharing HR, and the only way to make the necessary operational savings will be to merge areas like traffic, firearms and other support areas. Quality will suffer with the diminishing resources, but when funding increases in the police in the future they'll hopefully be more fundamentally more efficient models in which to increase resources.
I am happy for forces to merge - especially smaller ones. I'm not completely sold on a national force but am open to it if it's supported by evidence.
In no point in the thread have I said I'm against either. There's already a lot of collaboration in terms of corporate functions e.g. forces sharing HR, and the only way to make the necessary operational savings will be to merge areas like traffic, firearms and other support areas. Quality will suffer with the diminishing resources, but when funding increases in the police in the future they'll hopefully be more fundamentally more efficient models in which to increase resources.
Err isn't that the same point I'm making? That this mentality occurs in all sizes except possibly the very very smallest one man and literally his dog operations?
Even then in the network of dogs...
In all this thread note I have said nothing about the issue of SYP search in another force area. Nothing to see there, move on imo.
The other issues raised are off topic from PCC OP so will leave them, I.e. collaboration with media albeit from position of being put between rock and a hard place by the original leak from Yewtree (possibly) that original original leak is my main concern.
Even then in the network of dogs...
In all this thread note I have said nothing about the issue of SYP search in another force area. Nothing to see there, move on imo.
The other issues raised are off topic from PCC OP so will leave them, I.e. collaboration with media albeit from position of being put between rock and a hard place by the original leak from Yewtree (possibly) that original original leak is my main concern.
FiF said:
Err isn't that the same point I'm making? That this mentality occurs in all sizes except possibly the very very smallest one man and literally his dog operations?
I think we're on the same page, generally. FiF said:
In all this thread note I have said nothing about the issue of SYP search in another force area. Nothing to see there, move on imo.
No, you haven't. Those comments weren't in reference to you. Rovinghawk said:
gpo746 said:
I wouldn't normally have bothered responding to yet another of your posts but I found your discourtesy in the other thread to be a bit below the belt.
In fairness to LL, he's a great deal more polite than many others holding a similar position/POV.Insular little empires like the clique that smeared Andrew Mitchell? Didn't the police use RIPA to go after the officer(s) that blew the whistle on that little scam by going to the press rather than the little gang that sought to get Mitchell by telling tales to the press?
If RIPA was used to identify the officer(s) that went to the press telling them Mitchell was getting set up how does that compare to the two injunctions taken out by the Council in South Yorks. against The Times to keep the 1400 young girls being sexually abused over 16 years out of the news?
If RIPA was used to identify the officer(s) that went to the press telling them Mitchell was getting set up how does that compare to the two injunctions taken out by the Council in South Yorks. against The Times to keep the 1400 young girls being sexually abused over 16 years out of the news?
Edited by carinaman on Friday 26th September 16:20
La Liga said:
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?
Standby for a month? Seems a bit excessive, isn't someone capable of planning and managing these processes? I'm also sure there are better solutions, but this would need a culture for change, which doesn't appear to exist.
The Rotherham scandal demonstrates the need for an organisation to take a wider view of the structures and processes which drive decision making.
I'll add: 4) What's the likelihood of finding any relevant evidence? Are the costs within the public domain? Or are they secret?
Fundamentally not broken? Depends on how high you set the bar. Heavily damaged at the very least. Rotherham, Hillsborough and Mitchell to name but three damaging examples currently in the public eye. Or do you believe that these three examples demonstrate that the system is working well? Decent police officers must be appalled at the actions (or inactions) of some of their colleagues.
Want to deal with prison overcrowding? Find out why criminals re-offend and then get banged up again, develop solutions from there. I'm sure someone has studied this, but when the rate of re-offending is approaching 50% then there's clearly a serious failure to manage the key issues.
Something that's frequently missed is that a benefit of a national structure is the ease with which poorly performing teams can be broken up without sacking people. Much more difficult to do that in an smaller, insular structure.
"Insular little empire" was dropped on me by a client a couple of years ago, he was describing his own company. Do I "do" management speak? If it generates a fee then I try, but it's difficult to keep a straight face for long though. Bingo!
You're clearly getting very wound-up about this, so the last word is all yours. Enough already.
V8 Fettler said:
For court location, cost benefit should always overrule historical pitchforkishness, because it's my tax money that pays for it.
Standby for a month? Seems a bit excessive, isn't someone capable of planning and managing these processes? I'm also sure there are better solutions, but this would need a culture for change, which doesn't appear to exist.
The Rotherham scandal demonstrates the need for an organisation to take a wider view of the structures and processes which drive decision making.
I'll add: 4) What's the likelihood of finding any relevant evidence? Are the costs within the public domain? Or are they secret?
Fundamentally not broken? Depends on how high you set the bar. Heavily damaged at the very least. Rotherham, Hillsborough and Mitchell to name but three damaging examples currently in the public eye. Or do you believe that these three examples demonstrate that the system is working well? Decent police officers must be appalled at the actions (or inactions) of some of their colleagues.
Want to deal with prison overcrowding? Find out why criminals re-offend and then get banged up again, develop solutions from there. I'm sure someone has studied this, but when the rate of re-offending is approaching 50% then there's clearly a serious failure to manage the key issues.
Something that's frequently missed is that a benefit of a national structure is the ease with which poorly performing teams can be broken up without sacking people. Much more difficult to do that in an smaller, insular structure.
"Insular little empire" was dropped on me by a client a couple of years ago, he was describing his own company. Do I "do" management speak? If it generates a fee then I try, but it's difficult to keep a straight face for long though. Bingo!
You're clearly getting very wound-up about this, so the last word is all yours. Enough already.
Much of what you've asked or criticised here has been answered already. It seems pointless repeating the answers.Standby for a month? Seems a bit excessive, isn't someone capable of planning and managing these processes? I'm also sure there are better solutions, but this would need a culture for change, which doesn't appear to exist.
The Rotherham scandal demonstrates the need for an organisation to take a wider view of the structures and processes which drive decision making.
I'll add: 4) What's the likelihood of finding any relevant evidence? Are the costs within the public domain? Or are they secret?
Fundamentally not broken? Depends on how high you set the bar. Heavily damaged at the very least. Rotherham, Hillsborough and Mitchell to name but three damaging examples currently in the public eye. Or do you believe that these three examples demonstrate that the system is working well? Decent police officers must be appalled at the actions (or inactions) of some of their colleagues.
Want to deal with prison overcrowding? Find out why criminals re-offend and then get banged up again, develop solutions from there. I'm sure someone has studied this, but when the rate of re-offending is approaching 50% then there's clearly a serious failure to manage the key issues.
Something that's frequently missed is that a benefit of a national structure is the ease with which poorly performing teams can be broken up without sacking people. Much more difficult to do that in an smaller, insular structure.
"Insular little empire" was dropped on me by a client a couple of years ago, he was describing his own company. Do I "do" management speak? If it generates a fee then I try, but it's difficult to keep a straight face for long though. Bingo!
You're clearly getting very wound-up about this, so the last word is all yours. Enough already.
You quote Mitchell and Hillsboro' as if you know what went on yet, as we see, every week new information becomes public and that should cause one to address one's prejudices.
Despite saying that the last word is someone else's you bring up another criticism: 4) What's the likelihood of finding any relevant evidence?
That question shows that you do not understand the requirements placed on an enquiry. It's all rather complex and difficult to explain even in posts of the length of mine. So in brief, if an enquiry receives information then it must act on it. It must put it to bed. Further, if there is a chance of finding evidence that the person charged is innocent and the enquiry does not takes steps to secure this evidence then it could lose the case in court.
Further, it is obvious to everyone that no evidence can be evidence, even when this helps the defence.
A brief overview, a precis of a precis. But the question 'what's the likelihood' is rather pointless.
I'd not like to be the one who was standing in the box trying to explain to Argyl why normal procedures weren't followed: 'Well, Mick, we did this cost/benefit analysis you see . . .'
LOL @ Derek and the concept of arguing a cost benefit analysis.
Point is one rule of thumb I like is "if this were me accused how would/could I explain it as a defence? "
If there is a possible explanation then check it out. If it's not valid then one more nail in the coffin. If it checks out they may just be innocent.
Point is one rule of thumb I like is "if this were me accused how would/could I explain it as a defence? "
If there is a possible explanation then check it out. If it's not valid then one more nail in the coffin. If it checks out they may just be innocent.
V8 Fettler said:
For court location, cost benefit should always overrule historical pitchforkishness, because it's my tax money that pays for it.
And it's the tax money of others who like to see their crimes dealt with in their area. You don't hold the monopoly on this opinion. V8 Fettler said:
Standby for a month? Seems a bit excessive, isn't someone capable of planning and managing these processes? I'm also sure there are better solutions, but this would need a culture for change, which doesn't appear to exist.
That's the nature of the legal process. Crown Court trails can get snagged up at any point due to the often complex nature of them. V8 Fettler said:
The Rotherham scandal demonstrates the need for an organisation to take a wider view of the structures and processes which drive decision making.
Or just to apply the law properly. V8 Fettler said:
I'll add: 4) What's the likelihood of finding any relevant evidence? Are the costs within the public domain? Or are they secret?
This'll help with the overnight stay aspect: http://www.travelsupermarket.com/c/hotels/V8 Fettler said:
Fundamentally not broken? Depends on how high you set the bar. Heavily damaged at the very least. Rotherham, Hillsborough and Mitchell to name but three damaging examples currently in the public eye. Or do you believe that these three examples demonstrate that the system is working well? Decent police officers must be appalled at the actions (or inactions) of some of their colleagues.
I think they demonstrate how unusual they are. atypical they are, which is why they stand out so much. Hillsborough is also from another time. V8 Fettler said:
Want to deal with prison overcrowding? Find out why criminals re-offend and then get banged up again, develop solutions from there. I'm sure someone has studied this, but when the rate of re-offending is approaching 50% then there's clearly a serious failure to manage the key issues.
You think someone may have studied it? I think there may be a whole discipline dedicated to it called criminology 
V8 Fettler said:
You're clearly getting very wound-up about this, so the last word is all yours. Enough already.
Not at all. Quite happy to correct things so people aren't misled. http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/crime/compl...
"
Fresh problems have rocked the office of Lancashire’s Police and Crime Commissioner after his second in command was accused of misconduct.
The county’s highest ranking officer has filed a complaint over Deputy PCC Ibrahim Master’s involvement in an ongoing investigation.
The Gazette understands police spoke to him concerning allegations of harassment."
"
Fresh problems have rocked the office of Lancashire’s Police and Crime Commissioner after his second in command was accused of misconduct.
The county’s highest ranking officer has filed a complaint over Deputy PCC Ibrahim Master’s involvement in an ongoing investigation.
The Gazette understands police spoke to him concerning allegations of harassment."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29229692
"Four out of six police forces in the East of England are spending more on police commissioners compared to the old authority system, one by more than 60%, the BBC can reveal.
Freedom of Information requests have found increases in Bedfordshire (9.7%), Cambridgeshire (3.8%), Norfolk (8.62%) and Northamptonshire (61.5%).
Essex and Suffolk saw spending decreases of 20% and 2.7%."
"Four out of six police forces in the East of England are spending more on police commissioners compared to the old authority system, one by more than 60%, the BBC can reveal.
Freedom of Information requests have found increases in Bedfordshire (9.7%), Cambridgeshire (3.8%), Norfolk (8.62%) and Northamptonshire (61.5%).
Essex and Suffolk saw spending decreases of 20% and 2.7%."
Johnnytheboy said:
So now the public have an elected figure to blame when the police f
k up.
From a democratic POV I can see how that's a bad thing.
it is also what the populous said they wanted as they felt the previous oversight arrangements with heavily reliance on councillors was not responsive or clear enough ...k up.From a democratic POV I can see how that's a bad thing.
as for empires - there is little or no reason other than county council little-middle-englander grandstanding why we still have 30 + police ofrces and 3-0 + fire brigades in England.
While the regionalisation of the Ambulance service has attracted criticism it's usually ill informed and going back to the 30 + services would make no difference ( podunk hollow , Lincolnshire will still find it's local vehicle drawn to Lincoln / Boston/ Grimsby - Cleethropes whether it says Lincolnshire AS or EMAS on the side - but what it might benefit you is should you have a cardiac arrest just on the Notts side of the county line and a/the Newark ambi is at King's mill or the QMC...
I'm not sure if I've misread what you wrote, but I don't know any member of the populous who ever said "what we really need are Police Commissioners". The whole thing has been an expensive shambles. We've never seen or heard a thing from ours since he arrived. When elections have a consistent turnout in single figures, you know it's a joke.
The Conservative chairman Grant Shapps was complaining that the defection of an MP to UKIP had led to an 'unnecessary' election that had cost the taxpayer £250000. He studiously avoids talking about the tens of millions PCC elections have cost.
As for the ambulance service. It's in meltdown. Paramedics leaving in droves. Patients being taken to hospital in the back of Police cars due to lack of ambulances. Osbourne gleefully stated that all the emergency services can expect the same level of cuts again should they be re-elected. It genuinely doesn't bear thinking about.
The Conservative chairman Grant Shapps was complaining that the defection of an MP to UKIP had led to an 'unnecessary' election that had cost the taxpayer £250000. He studiously avoids talking about the tens of millions PCC elections have cost.
As for the ambulance service. It's in meltdown. Paramedics leaving in droves. Patients being taken to hospital in the back of Police cars due to lack of ambulances. Osbourne gleefully stated that all the emergency services can expect the same level of cuts again should they be re-elected. It genuinely doesn't bear thinking about.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff