Police and Crime Commisioners Wow Just Wow

Police and Crime Commisioners Wow Just Wow

Author
Discussion

FiF

43,962 posts

250 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
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.
What this ^^^ man said. It really doesn't bear thinking about.

So on the basis of the figures quoted earlier some cost more some cost a little less. Apart from the estimated 20% less in Essex,this should suggests that costs may be very similar. But then the election costs on top.

Can understand, along with all the other stuff going on, that the anthem for many who voted for Cameron last time is The Who's "Won't get fooled again. "

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
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 ambulance service is not in meltdown

leaving aside the NHS wide issues over pay for the moment

the NHS ambulance service had been protected from any ofthe pressures in the rest of the nHS for quite a while as until the CQC registration of Ambulance services came about they were able to imply that private services were all walter mitty types and that SJA and BRC were hobbyists ... .

the CCGs taking control of funding and the CQC regulating all Ambulance providers on a level playing field ( which has brought some big names from elsewhere in transport / healthcare in the market e.g. Arriva and SRCL)

Paramedics are leaving poorly run trusts in droves because the market is opening up ... LAS has had problems with retention ofr many years - ironically they exacerbated it by being one of if not the first to have direct entry techs ( know of a number of people who went to LAS for direct entry tech / employee Student Para and then bailed out back to 'home' at either QAT or after getting their Paramedic ticket ).

Part of the problem the Ambulance service has is the unrealistic attitude the Unions have towards workforce planning - thety struggle to provide viable arguments as to why a clijnican + assistant team is worse than two not quite clinicians or a clinician and a not quite a clinician , the attitude towards skills development is based around a 'laundry list' pof medications and psychomotor interventions rather than actually embracing extension and expansion of role .

a 'lack of ambulances ' reflects in efficient ways of working as much as it does a lack of resources ... also a lack of testicular fortitude from Ambulance Managers to up the ante - I suspect that acute trust management would start pulling their weight and pressuring social care more if the ambulance service declared a Major incident every time there were more than a couple of ambulances waiting to hand over ...

the attitude of the Ambulance sector unions does not help - rather than acknowledging that the demand responsive use of third party providers allows peaks in demand to be met they want a lesser number of of extra NHS crews ... not that this has anything to do with holding the country to ransom in classic Unison style, the ridiculous bias against the use of SJA and BRC resources is also crazy as these are probably the least threatening overall private providers - or are they scared of the NZ scenario happening where their Statutory service in the majority of the country is run by SJA NZ ( Wellington being the main exception where Welling ton Free Ambulance got well established first before the statutory provision initially came around and have got and kept the stat contract)... i'm fairly sure that Arriva and SRCL have eyes on 999 provision ( Arriva have some 'urgent contracts ' as well as the PTS / discharge / none criticla care interfacility as it stands - the critical care interfacility transfer contracts have been unbundled from 999 in many places even if the NHS service got the contract - but have to have deicated crews and vehicles)

brenflys777

2,678 posts

176 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
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.
At least the foreign aid budget was ring fenced.

The conservatives used to be the most natural fit for those in law and order. I remember the outrage from the conservatives about Labours disgusting refusal to adhere to the independent commission on police pay. Then in office they have ignored independent police pay recommendations and then said they can't ignore an 11% uplift for themselves.

I know officers who were seriously injured on duty, pensioned out and whose injuries Doctors have said will not and have not improved. They have had their injury re classified into lower bands with no medical evidence. The process of getting it reinstated is arduous and upsetting. Police fed reps have never had a good rep but some of the stories I've heard recently are disgusting.

The conservatives relationship with there core voters has been strained but during times of austerity and social change, dumping on the police is pretty dim. If I'd stayed in plod and not got injured or killed, I'd only have twelve years to go to my pension, but talking to my former colleagues few expect to be allowed to complete the time to pension before the goalposts move or they get injured.

PCCs are not helping with the major problems frontline Police staff have. They just provide a degree of separation and deniability between the politicians who cause the problem and the public who see the results.

brenflys777

2,678 posts

176 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
It's not giving away any secrets as it's all over social media but it appears that officers have (based on whatever information) been reminded of personal security this weekend and the fact their jobs makes them a specific target.

It's fifteen years ago but I've done single crewed response at night with minimal back up in a dodgy area. Several officers on my shift were injured enough to require retirement with an injury on duty. It's never good but at least you knew that you had some support if things went wrong.

Here's a letter from the Avon and Somerset PCC:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202291/resp...

I would draw particular attention to this point about the lack of benefit to local people from these inconsiderate officers who get injured on duty.

"Therefore, at the moment the only reduction in annual IoD payments is when someone in receipt of an IoD dies. However as more officers leave the force with medical retirements this IoD annual cost continues to rise.

Hopefully this is of interest to you and I would welcome any thoughts that you may have as this is becoming a significant part of the budget that does not provide any servicers to the people of Avon & Somerset"

Elroy Blue

8,686 posts

191 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
mph1977 said:
The ambulance service is not in meltdown
Without wishing to be direct, bks.

I've got over 20 years in the job. Only in the last few years have I had to wait with seriously injured people over an hour for an ambulance. Only in the last few years have I been repeatedly told there are no ambulances available. And only in the last few years do we often take people to hospital in Police cars. A colleague of mine called 999 a few weeks ago when his young daughter collapsed. An ambulance arrived...from bloody St Johns. They crew were not adequately trained and her life was saved by a doctor who lives next door.

This is being repeated across the country. In London it's even worse. This isn't caused by staff, it's caused be 'reform'. Otherwise known as cuts.

Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
brenflys777 said:
I know officers who were seriously injured on duty, pensioned out and whose injuries Doctors have said will not and have not improved. They have had their injury re classified into lower bands with no medical evidence. The process of getting it reinstated is arduous and upsetting.
That's because police forces use their own "doctors" who are nothing more than hired guns.

Maladministration and forces acting unlawfully is common place as far as IOD awards are concerned.

There are rafts of legal cases brought by former officers where "the police" have had their arses handed to them on a plate at the High Court. The way injured officers are treated is truly disgusting. It is shameful.

Having been beaten at court, what do "the police" do ? They spit their dummy out and decide to re-write The Regs - I've seen a draft copy of the proposals for new IODs and it is frightening.

The new Regs won't apply to anyone already in receipt of an IOD Award but currently serving officers should brace themselves if they are unfortunate enough to be injured on duty.


brenflys777

2,678 posts

176 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
That's because police forces use their own "doctors" who are nothing more than hired guns.
I have seen the notes of one case where an officer who was forced to be medically retired had her injury award reduced. In her favour was an independent consultant plastic surgeon, an independent psychologist and the forces original independent counsellor and psychologist.

Their reports were overruled by the forces Doctor who is a GP.

Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
brenflys777 said:
I have seen the notes of one case where an officer who was forced to be medically retired had her injury award reduced. In her favour was an independent consultant plastic surgeon, an independent psychologist and the forces original independent counsellor and psychologist.

Their reports were overruled by the forces Doctor who is a GP.
The basis for reduction (or increase) of an IOD Award is that there has been "a substantial alteration" in the former officer's degree of disablement (earning capacity).

If there hasn't been any alteration; i.e. her condition has remained the same, any reduction is unlawful.

Unfortunately, force SMPs have little grasp of the law or the stated cases.

......... APPEAL with legal assistance via the fed !!

A new SMP cannot overturn the decision of a previous SMP without good reason.

Take a look at the case of Laws v. the Met.


Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 11th October 17:23

brenflys777

2,678 posts

176 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
The basis for reduction (or increase) of an IOD Award is that there has been "a substantial alteration" in the former officer's degree of disablement (earning capacity).

If there hasn't been any alteration; i.e. her condition has remained the same, any reduction is unlawful.

Unfortunately, force SMPs have little grasp of the law or the stated cases.

......... APPEAL with legal assistance via the fed !!

A new SMP cannot overturn the decision of a previous SMP without good reason.

Take a look at the case of Laws v. the Met.


Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 11th October 17:23
This particular case took over 12 months to fix. The money was eventually repaid. The fed were of little use and the retired officer had to attend the appeals panel in person and explain what had happened to her as though no one had read the paperwork. Reliving the incident in a stressful situation directly against the psychologists advice.

The whole process seem designed to discourage making an appeal by making it unpleasant and arduous.

In my mind I apportion plenty of blame for this to the government who have come up with an arbitrary figure of savings to be made, the senior management in the way it's administered, the fed for getting bogged down in politics rather than highlighting actual cases and so on, but reading that PCC letter I am appalled that someone in that position thinks that the officers injured on duty provided no service to locals. That she thinks the benefits are generous ignores the role and responsibility.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Without wishing to be direct, bks.

I've got over 20 years in the job. Only in the last few years have I had to wait with seriously injured people over an hour for an ambulance. Only in the last few years have I been repeatedly told there are no ambulances available. And only in the last few years do we often take people to hospital in Police cars. A colleague of mine called 999 a few weeks ago when his young daughter collapsed. An ambulance arrived...from bloody St Johns. They crew were not adequately trained and her life was saved by a doctor who lives next door.

This is being repeated across the country. In London it's even worse. This isn't caused by staff, it's caused be 'reform'. Otherwise known as cuts.
An ambulance from 'bloody st johns' containing personnel trained in line with national standards if the issue was around one or two medications - an NHS ECA crew couldn;t have given those either and there are questions over the legality of techs carrying these meds... and trained in excess of the standards of the Assistant grades used by the NHS , oddly enough the unions are rather quiet about the use of dual ECA crews unless there is an adverse outcome ... but very quick to shout about the use of Private service and SJA /BRC crews ... there are also issues with 'technician' NHS ambulances beign sent to calls that require a paramedic but again unless there;s a fatality the Unions are very quiet on that subject as well - far more concerned with trying to get people who did an 8 week course band 5 same as Health professionals.

There is and remains a serious issue with turn around times in some services - these not are the reported issues with A+E departments not taking hand overs but the way in which some crews can lose the time to do several jobs a shift due to delays post handover (oddly enough borne out by the fact a number of services have employed A~+E side hospital liasion officers for certain localities where this is a problem )

I've also seen data showing that certain crews and certain stations have extended turnaround times - data from a variety of sources ... i've also heard a number of times from reliable sources of one service control room (A) being contacted by the adjacent service (B) because of delayed turnarounds by B's crews at a 'shared' recieving A+E to enquire if there is a Major Incident or some other issue in Service A area' to for A to say , no everything is fine and our crews are turning round in the 'normal' 15 -20 minutes that planning assumptions permit.

There is also an issue with crews who do not utilise all treatment pathways open to them or will transport patients becasue it is the path of least resistance, yet in the next breath they are wanting band 6 for standard Paramedics ... Orwith crews that refuse calls becasue it's out of their area - not having the bigger picture that perhaps control want to preserve Paramedic cover in that 'out of area' location especially if it;s on the more rural fringes of a service area.

This is before considerign the abuse of the Ambulance Service by the police , where unilateral decisions were made by senior police officers that certain crimes no longer existed and that these individuals were an Ambulance problem , or those transported by the ambulance service at police request who are put into the waiting room on arrival A+E ... and there isn;lt even t the excuse it;s becasue the FME service is crap given the ,money many forces spend on employing Health Professionals to work in custody suites to assess these individuals. you can't have it all ways.

Elroy Blue

8,686 posts

191 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
mph1977 said:

This is before considerign the abuse of the Ambulance Service by the police , where unilateral decisions were made by senior police officers that certain crimes no longer existed and that these individuals were an Ambulance problem , or those transported by the ambulance service at police request who are put into the waiting room on arrival A+E ... and there isn;lt even t the excuse it;s becasue the FME service is crap given the ,money many forces spend on employing Health Professionals to work in custody suites to assess these individuals. you can't have it all ways.
Again. What a load of crock.

I'm aware the thread is drifting, but if you want to talk about absolving responsibility we can start another thread about mental health and the 'nothing to do with us guv' attitude of the NHS.

A drunken person or somebody intent on committing suicide hasn't committed any crime. Yet we are expected to put them in a cell as a 'place of safety'. and keep a constant watch. Total nonsense.

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Without wishing to be direct, bks.

I've got over 20 years in the job. Only in the last few years have I had to wait with seriously injured people over an hour for an ambulance. Only in the last few years have I been repeatedly told there are no ambulances available. And only in the last few years do we often take people to hospital in Police cars. A colleague of mine called 999 a few weeks ago when his young daughter collapsed. An ambulance arrived...from bloody St Johns. They crew were not adequately trained and her life was saved by a doctor who lives next door.

This is being repeated across the country. In London it's even worse. This isn't caused by staff, it's caused be 'reform'. Otherwise known as cuts.
Agreed yes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29332670


mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
mph1977 said:

This is before considerign the abuse of the Ambulance Service by the police , where unilateral decisions were made by senior police officers that certain crimes no longer existed and that these individuals were an Ambulance problem , or those transported by the ambulance service at police request who are put into the waiting room on arrival A+E ... and there isn;lt even t the excuse it;s becasue the FME service is crap given the ,money many forces spend on employing Health Professionals to work in custody suites to assess these individuals. you can't have it all ways.
Again. What a load of crock.

I'm aware the thread is drifting, but if you want to talk about absolving responsibility we can start another thread about mental health and the 'nothing to do with us guv' attitude of the NHS.

A drunken person or somebody intent on committing suicide hasn't committed any crime. Yet we are expected to put them in a cell as a 'place of safety'. and keep a constant watch. Total nonsense.
1. Has drunk and incapable been removed from the statute book ? ( Licensing act )

2. An Acute Hospital Emergency Department is not a place of safety for Mental Health Act purposes either.

and you talk aobut 'nothing to do with us' attitudes ... what about the de-arresting of people in Emergency Departments because they will be fit to detain only after treatment ... one has to ask if you had the necessity to arrest in the first place .

Elroy Blue

8,686 posts

191 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
mph1977 said:
1. Has drunk and incapable been removed from the statute book ? ( Licensing act )

2. An Acute Hospital Emergency Department is not a place of safety for Mental Health Act purposes either.

and you talk aobut 'nothing to do with us' attitudes ... what about the de-arresting of people in Emergency Departments because they will be fit to detain only after treatment ... one has to ask if you had the necessity to arrest in the first place .
Nicely avoided the mental health question. What you are not acknowledging is that mental health cases are taken to mental health units, It never ceases to amaze me that they can just refuse to have anything to do with the person and couldn't give a toss what happens to the them. Then we have a Police Officer stood outside with a suicide case and nowhere to go other than to a cell. Then it's two Officers being expected to do a constant watch and give care to the person with no medical training whatsoever. It really must be great to be able to say 'No', because the 'specialists' do it all the time.
As for drunks. People die in Police cells when they are drunk. It's not 1800 anymore, its 2014.

gpo746

Original Poster:

3,397 posts

129 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
brenflys777 said:
It's not giving away any secrets as it's all over social media but it appears that officers have (based on whatever information) been reminded of personal security this weekend and the fact their jobs makes them a specific target.

It's fifteen years ago but I've done single crewed response at night with minimal back up in a dodgy area. Several officers on my shift were injured enough to require retirement with an injury on duty. It's never good but at least you knew that you had some support if things went wrong.

Here's a letter from the Avon and Somerset PCC:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202291/resp...

I would draw particular attention to this point about the lack of benefit to local people from these inconsiderate officers who get injured on duty.

"Therefore, at the moment the only reduction in annual IoD payments is when someone in receipt of an IoD dies. However as more officers leave the force with medical retirements this IoD annual cost continues to rise.

Hopefully this is of interest to you and I would welcome any thoughts that you may have as this is becoming a significant part of the budget that does not provide any servicers to the people of Avon & Somerset"
Not being rude but what was "15 years ago" I assume a large scale issue for the Police as you mention a letter but what event was it
I know the riots were 4 years agoand thought this may be Hillsporough or something but dates wrong so can't work out what went down this time in 1999 ?

Sorry if I sound thick - genuine question not points scoring just baffled.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Without wishing to be direct, bks.

I've got over 20 years in the job. Only in the last few years have I had to wait with seriously injured people over an hour for an ambulance. Only in the last few years have I been repeatedly told there are no ambulances available. And only in the last few years do we often take people to hospital in Police cars. A colleague of mine called 999 a few weeks ago when his young daughter collapsed. An ambulance arrived...from bloody St Johns. They crew were not adequately trained and her life was saved by a doctor who lives next door.

This is being repeated across the country. In London it's even worse. This isn't caused by staff, it's caused be 'reform'. Otherwise known as cuts.
I normally find your posts to be a bit "chippy".

You do seem to be a bit left wing from from where I sit.

However, even a right winger like me doesn't believe that the police should have to spend an hour waiting for an ambulance to arrive.

That must be horrible.



Elroy Blue

8,686 posts

191 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
I normally find your posts to be a bit "chippy".

You do seem to be a bit left wing from from where I sit.

However, even a right winger like me doesn't believe that the police should have to spend an hour waiting for an ambulance to arrive.

That must be horrible.
Well you'd be wrong. I've never voted anything but Conservative, but have had to watch the emergency services by decimated for ideological reasons by a smarmy, lying, old boys club. They have crippled the Police and proudly proclaim that they intend to make the same amount of cuts again, making the Police service unviable.

They do of course stand up and lie about 'protecting the front line', but it's total horsest. They have ensured that 140'000 mainly Tory supporters will never vote for them again

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
mph1977 said:
1. Has drunk and incapable been removed from the statute book ? ( Licensing act )

2. An Acute Hospital Emergency Department is not a place of safety for Mental Health Act purposes either.

and you talk aobut 'nothing to do with us' attitudes ... what about the de-arresting of people in Emergency Departments because they will be fit to detain only after treatment ... one has to ask if you had the necessity to arrest in the first place .
Nicely avoided the mental health question. What you are not acknowledging is that mental health cases are taken to mental health units, It never ceases to amaze me that they can just refuse to have anything to do with the person and couldn't give a toss what happens to the them. Then we have a Police Officer stood outside with a suicide case and nowhere to go other than to a cell. Then it's two Officers being expected to do a constant watch and give care to the person with no medical training whatsoever. It really must be great to be able to say 'No', because the 'specialists' do it all the time.
As for drunks. People die in Police cells when they are drunk. It's not 1800 anymore, its 2014.
so instead you come and dump them on an acute Hospital Emergency Department which does not have the resources to provide adequate supervision, if it has a suitable facility for such observations to take place. there are no circumstances in which an Acute Hospital emergency Department is considered a place of safety for mental health Act purposes.

Do you know how much Mental Health training Adult / General nurses have ? somewhere between 3 and 9 weeks as a first year and generally not in acute settings ( if you are lucky it'll be in a continuing care unit for adults with complex needs / treatment resistant schizophrenia or a dual diagnosis of Learning disabilities and mental health- where you might actually get to be involvedi na little bit of de-escalation and work with someoen having actual acute symptoms t, if you are unlucky it'll be a dementia unit that happens to be adminstratively under the Mental Health trust) , if you are really lucky you'll get a day or two observing with the crisis team either then or if you get A+E for your specialist placement ).


Many of the Drunk people who die do so because they are not adequately supervised nothing to do with location, decisions as to whether someone is drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable seem to depend on the mood of the officers involved - and you canlt claim lack of knowledge there as the courts acknowledge Constables as expert witnesses on the matter of intoxication. I have no issue with someone who is so intoxicated they cannot protect their own airway soming to A+E as this is appropriate, but someone who is drunk and isorderly but a bit 'wobbly' being dumped in A+E ....

Elroy Blue

8,686 posts

191 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
mph1977 said:
so instead you come and dump them on an acute Hospital Emergency Department which does not have the resources to provide adequate supervision, if it has a suitable facility for such observations to take place. there are no circumstances in which an Acute Hospital emergency Department is considered a place of safety for mental health Act purposes.

Do you know how much Mental Health training Adult / General nurses have ? somewhere between 3 and 9 weeks as a first year and generally not in acute settings ( if you are lucky it'll be in a continuing care unit for adults with complex needs / treatment resistant schizophrenia or a dual diagnosis of Learning disabilities and mental health- where you might actually get to be involvedi na little bit of de-escalation and work with someoen having actual acute symptoms t, if you are unlucky it'll be a dementia unit that happens to be adminstratively under the Mental Health trust) , if you are really lucky you'll get a day or two observing with the crisis team either then or if you get A+E for your specialist placement ).


Many of the Drunk people who die do so because they are not adequately supervised nothing to do with location, decisions as to whether someone is drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable seem to depend on the mood of the officers involved - and you canlt claim lack of knowledge there as the courts acknowledge Constables as expert witnesses on the matter of intoxication. I have no issue with someone who is so intoxicated they cannot protect their own airway soming to A+E as this is appropriate, but someone who is drunk and isorderly but a bit 'wobbly' being dumped in A+E ....
Well that mental health training is a lot more than a Police Officer gets. But that's be right, because it shouldn't be a Police Officers job to look after them. And you well know that when the mental health unit says no, they go a Police cell, not the A+E. And yes we can say someone is drunk (it's not rocket science). What we shouldn't have to do is care for them.

You sound like the last NHS manager we spoke to. Waffled for 45 minutes and what he said was 'nothing to do with us'.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
mph1977 said:
so instead you come and dump them on an acute Hospital Emergency Department which does not have the resources to provide adequate supervision, if it has a suitable facility for such observations to take place. there are no circumstances in which an Acute Hospital emergency Department is considered a place of safety for mental health Act purposes.

Do you know how much Mental Health training Adult / General nurses have ? somewhere between 3 and 9 weeks as a first year and generally not in acute settings ( if you are lucky it'll be in a continuing care unit for adults with complex needs / treatment resistant schizophrenia or a dual diagnosis of Learning disabilities and mental health- where you might actually get to be involvedi na little bit of de-escalation and work with someoen having actual acute symptoms t, if you are unlucky it'll be a dementia unit that happens to be adminstratively under the Mental Health trust) , if you are really lucky you'll get a day or two observing with the crisis team either then or if you get A+E for your specialist placement ).


Many of the Drunk people who die do so because they are not adequately supervised nothing to do with location, decisions as to whether someone is drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable seem to depend on the mood of the officers involved - and you canlt claim lack of knowledge there as the courts acknowledge Constables as expert witnesses on the matter of intoxication. I have no issue with someone who is so intoxicated they cannot protect their own airway soming to A+E as this is appropriate, but someone who is drunk and isorderly but a bit 'wobbly' being dumped in A+E ....
Well that mental health training is a lot more than a Police Officer gets. But that's be right, because it shouldn't be a Police Officers job to look after them. And you well know that when the mental health unit says no, they go a Police cell, not the A+E. And yes we can say someone is drunk (it's not rocket science). What we shouldn't have to do is care for them.

You sound like the last NHS manager we spoke to. Waffled for 45 minutes and what he said was 'nothing to do with us'.
In a lot of places they end up in A+E , the mental health services tell the police to do this and also tell them that A+E will accept responsibility for the patient ...

if you think it;s simple to be able to give expert testimony, I can see why certain people want the CoP to bct as proper professional regulator, you would think that being a police officer you'd understand the principles of having evidence to back up your statements.

the NHS is not a monolith , complaining to an acute trust about the actions or inactions of a Mental Health trust is about as useful an as complaining to the Met about GMP...