Police and Crime Commisioners Wow Just Wow
Discussion
La Liga said:
gpo746 said:
La Liga said:
stuff.........waffle
You keep believing it brother.But hey if that doesn't tally with your "research and your data " which will have a very narrow window applied to it then those opinions and experiences must be all wrong hey.
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
No experience of police work? Some as a supporting role for 1/2 dozen forces over 30 plus years . . .
So, like, none on major enquiries such as planning an operation, such as a search on suspect's premises.I have had some experience of planning labour resource on a national basis, this involved dismantling insular little empires to achieve a workable, cost-effective process. An insular little empire is still recognisable as an insular little empire wherever it is.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Did someone say insular? It's a police investigation, to be conducted efficiently with my tax money. There should be no internal "them and us" creating barriers and inefficiency.
And which court would it be tried at and where would the crime be recorded? How efficient would it be to have officers from miles away travelling up for a several day Crown Court trial? Plus you'd have more officers involved overall.Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
Officers travelling to court with reference to the search process and results? Present the search report to the defence prior to the trial, if they accept it then no requirement for an officer involved in the search to attend court (savings for the tax payer), if the defence requires clarifications then deal with these before the trial. Then there will be no ambushes by either side at the trial wrt the search process and the results of the search. This would undermine a few grandstanding legal bods, but so be it. Edit: perhaps this occurs already (?)
Edited by V8 Fettler on Monday 22 September 06:18
Derek Smith said:
The police service is not perfect. But to suggest wanton waste just shows ignorance of police systems.
On another thread Derek Smith said:
A sergeant in Beds took over a shift and on night duty was told that the habit was that while a neighbouring division covered for them, they would have a ‘mess night’, a dinner for all the shift.
The night was chosen and the night before the divisional minivan, two shotguns, and torch were taken by the sergeant and the chef to a golf course, the intention being for jugged hare.
.
<snip>
.
Cars came from all over, it being a quiet night. Greens and fairways, not designed for heavy braking and sudden turns, were sacrificed and one patrol car got stuck in a bunker to the extent that they needed more than a sand wedge to remove it.
I feel a discrepancy between your two posts.The night was chosen and the night before the divisional minivan, two shotguns, and torch were taken by the sergeant and the chef to a golf course, the intention being for jugged hare.
.
<snip>
.
Cars came from all over, it being a quiet night. Greens and fairways, not designed for heavy braking and sudden turns, were sacrificed and one patrol car got stuck in a bunker to the extent that they needed more than a sand wedge to remove it.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 22 September 11:25
V8 Fettler said:
Court location should be the most cost-effective location overall for the tax payer, which might not be the most convenient location for plod.
The police don't dictate the rules governing court locations. It's not set in stone, but there's this whole "idealism justice thing" that the people of the area the offence is committed should see justice tried and done in their area. Selfish gits! V8 Fettler said:
Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
No, it's geographically recorded in South Yorkshire. A national police force doesn't currently exist. V8 Fettler said:
Officers travelling to court with reference to the search process and results? Present the search report to the defence prior to the trial, if they accept it then no requirement for an officer involved in the search to attend court (savings for the tax payer)
Present it to the defence pre-trial? Obviously. Your economic efficiencies are based on the hope the evidence is accepted, in which a high-profile case is probably not going not occur. So you're relying on something occurring in an area you have no experience to dismiss the economic arguments raised by those who do have experience. A little flawed. From a pure business-case point of view, you'd make economic judgements from a probable basis, would you not? You've concluded it's an "insular little empire" too quickly, and now stubbornly won't move from that position and are trying to justify it no matter what. There are all the other aspects which present a risk beyond the economic that Derek has pointed out. You'd do well to re-read those as they need to go into the decision-making pot.
Normal practice is that other police forces do other things for other forces (unless it's high profile / specific / other justification), so you painting a culture of "insular" is, again, wrong.
V8 Fettler said:
if the defence requires clarifications then deal with these before the trial. Then there will be no ambushes by either side at the trial wrt the search process and the results of the search. This would undermine a few grandstanding legal bods, but so be it. Edit: perhaps this occurs already (?)
Of course! Clarify it pre-trial. I'll tell the Judge that next time the defence want me to appear for something like continuity. "Your honour, I'm not coming to give evidence at the defence's request, they should have clarified it pre-trial!" It's easy to just re-write the rules and laws to try and bend it around your arguments. You've already had lots of time and effort explaining why what was done was done and why, and why it's much more probable to be economically efficient. If you continue to think you know best then fine, it makes no difference to the way those who do will operate.
gpo746 said:
and maybe just maybe I make my opinions based on real life experiences and common sense.
You may have that individual experience. But what you can't say is "well all know". You don't speak for everyone else across the country for a complex moving data-point. gpo746 said:
But hey if that doesn't tally with your "research and your data " which will have a very narrow window applied to it then those opinions and experiences must be all wrong hey.
Not as narrow-a-window as your opinion and "common sense". Are you as an individual are a greater sample than the surveys? What's wrong with the methodologies? You said: gpo746 said:
We all know plod is losing touch with normal people no real need to rub it in.
"Is losing touch" means a greater degree than previous. For whatever periods of time you're measuring from and to. I didn't say everyone thinks the police are great. The survey captures people who have bad experiences / bad things to say about the police. I said there isn't evidence there is a greater degree of "losing touch" from any perception-based and / or experience-based data over a large sample and time period. You may be happy with a lazy, intuitive response and opinion, but I prefer actually seeing if I can separate fact and evidence from opinion and bias.
gpo746 said:
Cheers mate I don't derail threads and turn them into something else unlike yourself
I'd suggest the quality of the topic is often dictated / driven by the opening post. La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
No, it's geographically recorded in South Yorkshire. A national police force doesn't currently exist. You can't take him to task over the fact that it doesn't currently work like that.
Rovinghawk said:
I feel a discrepancy between your two posts.
There's more a discrepancy between your thinking, where you deliberately make out as if Derek means "all the time" when sighting an individual example. Plus he is comparing two different points in time. One is an "old days" anecdote and the latter is today. So they could co-exist. And he also said "systems", not people. But you have no interest in such detail or accuracies. It's like someone saying "to suggest airline systems aren't safe..." and then you giving an example of a plane crash through human error.
He didn't say "no", and the context was discussing why one force did it over another.
That's the problem with pulling apart context, you can make things mean what you want them to mean. You know as well as anyone that Derek knows there is inefficiency and waste, just as anyone does for a large organisation of any type. He even proceeds it by saying there isn't perfection. How much more of a hint could that be there needs to be some reasonable interpretation?
The point he was addressing was that this wasn't a flippant jolly across for the search team, without any consideration for any efficiency. The "system" which underpinned the decision-making is itself fundamentally efficient, regardless of individual minority, examples from the past or present.
That's the problem with pulling apart context, you can make things mean what you want them to mean. You know as well as anyone that Derek knows there is inefficiency and waste, just as anyone does for a large organisation of any type. He even proceeds it by saying there isn't perfection. How much more of a hint could that be there needs to be some reasonable interpretation?
The point he was addressing was that this wasn't a flippant jolly across for the search team, without any consideration for any efficiency. The "system" which underpinned the decision-making is itself fundamentally efficient, regardless of individual minority, examples from the past or present.
Mr La Liga
As it is clear you know best I totally defer to your judgement my own experiences and narrow mindedness should preclude me from having an opinion. I apologise for expressing such an opinion and rest assured that the police are wonderful and totally respected by all decent members of society. if you feel I should serve penitence by maybe washing the mud of the police cars tyres then do feel free to recommend as to where I should apply
You are a giant amongst posters and I feel unable to match you. I realise that the statistics you mention must completely mean that the police force is respected by all and sundry and that anyone who doesn't understand that is either a villain or a complete cretin.
Now whats your view on crime commissioners ?
As it is clear you know best I totally defer to your judgement my own experiences and narrow mindedness should preclude me from having an opinion. I apologise for expressing such an opinion and rest assured that the police are wonderful and totally respected by all decent members of society. if you feel I should serve penitence by maybe washing the mud of the police cars tyres then do feel free to recommend as to where I should apply
You are a giant amongst posters and I feel unable to match you. I realise that the statistics you mention must completely mean that the police force is respected by all and sundry and that anyone who doesn't understand that is either a villain or a complete cretin.
Now whats your view on crime commissioners ?
La Liga said:
The point he was addressing was that this wasn't a flippant jolly across for the search team, without any consideration for any efficiency. The "system" which underpinned the decision-making is itself fundamentally efficient, regardless of individual minority, examples from the past or present.
Indeed.I'd go further though as say that I've been impressed by the ability of SIOs. I'm in awe of most of them. Their commitment was complete. If in charge of a major incident, that would be their life for a week and often longer. I've known them not to go home at all for that time.
And just for those who believe what the DM publishes, no overtime either.
They have to balance the demands of the role - evidence, demands of CPS, demands of the law, need for speed, need for planning, all that sort of stuff, and then they have budget limits despite the press, other media, the CPS and, not forget, the demands of those on forums, to rapidly solve said crime.
And on top of that they have to depend on evidence from, perhaps, a probationer PC who turned up first at the scene, or arrested the suspect and secured critical evidence. Then they would be expected to go into court and face up to a highly, and expensively, educated brief whose only interest is to get his client off.
No wonder most have digestive problems.
I worked as liaison with two local resident judges and I was impressed by their dedication, Gower and the late Wrintmore, but their service to society was equalled by SIOs.
But that won't stop the criticisms of course, just because a coach wasn't used to transport officers to a search.
gpo746 said:
Mr La Liga
As it is clear you know best I totally defer to your judgement my own experiences and narrow mindedness should preclude me from having an opinion. I apologise for expressing such an opinion and rest assured that the police are wonderful and totally respected by all decent members of society. if you feel I should serve penitence by maybe washing the mud of the police cars tyres then do feel free to recommend as to where I should apply
You are a giant amongst posters and I feel unable to match you. I realise that the statistics you mention must completely mean that the police force is respected by all and sundry and that anyone who doesn't understand that is either a villain or a complete cretin.
The sarcasm is great, except I literally wrote this in my last reply to you: As it is clear you know best I totally defer to your judgement my own experiences and narrow mindedness should preclude me from having an opinion. I apologise for expressing such an opinion and rest assured that the police are wonderful and totally respected by all decent members of society. if you feel I should serve penitence by maybe washing the mud of the police cars tyres then do feel free to recommend as to where I should apply
You are a giant amongst posters and I feel unable to match you. I realise that the statistics you mention must completely mean that the police force is respected by all and sundry and that anyone who doesn't understand that is either a villain or a complete cretin.
La Liga said:
You may have that individual experience.
La Liga said:
I didn't say everyone thinks the police are great. The survey captures people who have bad experiences / bad things to say about the police.
gpo746 said:
Now whats your view on crime commissioners ?
The 16th reply on page 1. Rovinghawk said:
I feel a discrepancy between your two posts.
Perhaps I should have dated it. My fault as I thought the minivan would have given it away. It would ahve for a police officer.Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 22 September 11:25
However, for those who missed the clue, this was in the late 70s, probably 79. That's a few weeks ago. If your criticisms was of what the police used to be like then I could argue that point, but I don't think it relevant. We are talking of nowadays, or at least recent years, and not back to the time of flares.
Posters have moaned on here about about the cost of police overtime. Can you see why those who know about police work sometimes think it not worth the while contradicting those who believe the DM? Even before the present round of reducing fat - literally bone in fact - from the police, there was a case on my division where a DC was the only person who was on a rape enquiry in the first 9 hours - would have been 12 but a DS came in early, no overtime of course - because of the budget reductions.
Lots of wanton waste there of course.
You have no idea of the problems.
I accept your position that there is no wanton waste in the police service; all that sort of thing is firmly in the past and simply doesn't happen any more.
I accept that the police system is as good as it can ever get & any criticism is unfounded as we Untermensch can't possibly know as much as you, the cognoscenti.
I further accept that Police Commissioners aren't really part of the police system & are therefore excluded from the previous statement.
I accept that the police system is as good as it can ever get & any criticism is unfounded as we Untermensch can't possibly know as much as you, the cognoscenti.
I further accept that Police Commissioners aren't really part of the police system & are therefore excluded from the previous statement.
Rovinghawk said:
I accept your position that there is no wanton waste in the police service; all that sort of thing is firmly in the past and simply doesn't happen any more.
I accept that the police system is as good as it can ever get & any criticism is unfounded as we Untermensch can't possibly know as much as you, the cognoscenti.
I further accept that Police Commissioners aren't really part of the police system & are therefore excluded from the previous statement.
Well, there you go again, making things up. I accept that the police system is as good as it can ever get & any criticism is unfounded as we Untermensch can't possibly know as much as you, the cognoscenti.
I further accept that Police Commissioners aren't really part of the police system & are therefore excluded from the previous statement.
I would disagree that there is 'wanton' waste where the modifier refers to the police. There is a lot of waste which the police have no control over whatsoever, something which I have moaned about in the past.
I have stated, and often, that there is a fair bit wrong with the police service - I would have thought you might have remembered that given how frequently you criticise my posts. However, what I will say is a lot of resources are dedicated to eliminating waste in most forces today.
A fellow inspector once organised a sort of seminar on how to react to the concerns and needs of the public on the division and, despite not being a divisional inspector, I went along to show support. No waste as I was in my own time.
We were given permission to sit in on a special council meeting that was organised by one section to address specific difficulties of the gay/lesbian 'community'. Before it started the chair asked us to leave at a certain stage, following an indication from her, as the matter included confidential information that those involved might not want shared. Come the time, came the signal and we stood.
A councilor stood up and pointed to us suggesting that it was typical of the police to leave when this subject was raised and that we should be admonished for doing so. The chair told the woman, very strongly, that we were merely following her instructions.
Not to be defeated, the woman then said it was typical behaviour of the police and that we would have left then anyway.
Are you that Brighton councilor, Rovinghawk? I can imagine you in knitted leggings and a permanently angry expression.
V8 Fettler said:
1. Court location should be the most cost-effective location overall for the tax payer, which might not be the most convenient location for plod.
2. Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
3. Officers travelling to court with reference to the search process and results? Present the search report to the defence prior to the trial, if they accept it then no requirement for an officer involved in the search to attend court (savings for the tax payer), if the defence requires clarifications then deal with these before the trial. Then there will be no ambushes by either side at the trial wrt the search process and the results of the search. This would undermine a few grandstanding legal bods, but so be it. Edit: perhaps this occurs already (?)
Oh dear.2. Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
3. Officers travelling to court with reference to the search process and results? Present the search report to the defence prior to the trial, if they accept it then no requirement for an officer involved in the search to attend court (savings for the tax payer), if the defence requires clarifications then deal with these before the trial. Then there will be no ambushes by either side at the trial wrt the search process and the results of the search. This would undermine a few grandstanding legal bods, but so be it. Edit: perhaps this occurs already (?)
Your post clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no experience/ knowledge of policing or the judicial system.
There is so much wrong with your "opinions" that I don't know where to begin .....
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 September 16:55
Red 4 said:
V8 Fettler said:
1. Court location should be the most cost-effective location overall for the tax payer, which might not be the most convenient location for plod.
2. Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
3. Officers travelling to court with reference to the search process and results? Present the search report to the defence prior to the trial, if they accept it then no requirement for an officer involved in the search to attend court (savings for the tax payer), if the defence requires clarifications then deal with these before the trial. Then there will be no ambushes by either side at the trial wrt the search process and the results of the search. This would undermine a few grandstanding legal bods, but so be it. Edit: perhaps this occurs already (?)
Oh dear.
This post here clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no experience/ knowledge of policing or the judicial system.
There is so much wrong with with your "opinions" I don't know where to begin ...
2. Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
3. Officers travelling to court with reference to the search process and results? Present the search report to the defence prior to the trial, if they accept it then no requirement for an officer involved in the search to attend court (savings for the tax payer), if the defence requires clarifications then deal with these before the trial. Then there will be no ambushes by either side at the trial wrt the search process and the results of the search. This would undermine a few grandstanding legal bods, but so be it. Edit: perhaps this occurs already (?)
Oh dear.
This post here clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no experience/ knowledge of policing or the judicial system.
There is so much wrong with with your "opinions" I don't know where to begin ...
Edited by V8 Fettler on Monday 22 September 06:18
It's funny, hilarious, in its naivety. You'd imagine, wouldn't you, that someone would have thought of this already and clicked their fingers.
Mind you, there's an idea. Submitting statements so that the court can accept them and not call officers to sit around all day for no reason. Perhaps not calling witnesses until they are required might help. Get someone to put that forward.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff