Petrol theft is not a crime
Discussion
Mojocvh said:
turbobloke said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Although the police policy is disgraceful and unjustified, it would be fairly easy to use controlled entry/exit to forecourt or individual pumps.
Yes that, or use pre-payment.They have this exact system at the new ASDA at the west end of the kingsway.
Been there, what, three times now.
It was only the last time, when I was there, by myself at the fuelling point [won't call it a station] that Mo's dormant spidey sense kicked in and I started looking around my immediate situation.
NOT GOOD AT ALL if it kicked off. Due to the relative remoteness from main site no one would notice you being done over car jacked or even knifed, even from the adjacent access road, as it's all eyes front due to road layout..
Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 31st May 23:56
Prepayment seems to work fine in the US when I have been there.
mph1977 said:
Scuffers said:
With all this talk of cuts, makes you wonder how they justify 24/7/365 police coverage of the equidorian consulate.
Doors, Porches and Gates would have at least one officer there anyway like most of the embassies...Scuffers said:
mph1977 said:
Scuffers said:
With all this talk of cuts, makes you wonder how they justify 24/7/365 police coverage of the equidorian consulate.
Doors, Porches and Gates would have at least one officer there anyway like most of the embassies...Maybe PH's London BiB or indeed any PH London worker can assist with the "like most of the embassies" claim, I've walked and been taxied around pretty much all of the parts of London where embassies are located and apart from times when there were 'international events' afoot can't remember seeing a single British Bobby at any door or gate, including at those I've visited. There were uniformed nationals performing security functions controlling admission and once admitted, but that's not UK plod.
eldar said:
Derek Smith said:
What can you centralise with HR? Data for sure, but there's much more to it than that. There has to be a local unit, or are you suggesting that every query goes to the base in Liverpool. If there's a central unit and individual local ones, I'm not sure where the savings are.
Take HR, probably the easiest one to streamline. Paying a police person isn't difficult. There are probably 30+ systems with their associated support, development and management structures there already. Reduce it to one, you phone Pollockshields, Mumbai or Workington. 60% saving.This is what happens in the real world with IT systems. the boring, non industry specfic routine stuff is cost minimised, and slightly service reduced. But its cheap.
Progress, Derek, like it or not.
Your idea of IT seems related to the boring, routine stuff. I was under the impression that modern software systems have allowed massive cost savings at the local level as virtually all that is required is someone to input the data. That's what we've been told, so the old fashioned way, which included having someone on call to deal with queries, is a thing of the past.
I'm certain savings can be made but the problem is, as you must know, change costs and costs a lot. At a time when the police have been hit by a 20%+ reduction in budget with something similar coming again, how are they going to pay for this very expensive commodity? Savings is not the answer as before the balance was made, the government would force more changes, as experience shows.
I could give examples where forces have been forced to adopt national standards despite it giving not operational benefits to the force concerned, then when the new system is up and running, the government demands further modification.
You suggest, rather patronisingly, that I'm against progress. I am just the opposite. I have on these forums suggested that the police be allowed to change working practices for more than ten years. In order for the police to do their job properly and to a level the public is entitled to expect, or rather demand, there needs to be a revision of their work. But governments refuse this.
The government came up with the brilliant idea of having HATO, something I was very supportive of. A good idea I felt and one that could be expanded. And look at it now. The police requirement has, if anything, increased. PCSOs was a good idea at its basic premise, and another supported by me, but it has saved the police nothing. I am willing to bet that it has increased costs. And there are more. One of the best ways of allowing the police to modernise is to ensure the government keeps its nose out of things.
You suggest modifying the number of forces as progress. I'm not sure that's going to help the police perform effectively in any way. A bit of sticking plaster at best.
I thought the idea of bigger is better was demonstrated as false by industry many, many years ago.
whoami said:
Do you think there were significant cost savings when Police Scotland replaced eight separate forces?
I can't say, and neither can you. It is too recent.However, the situation in Scotland was significantly different to that in England/Wales. The average size of police forces was <2000, whereas the norm was considerably lower. I think the majority were sub 1000. They had an entirely different arrangement there with regards major incident enquiries.
The bloke in charge is very political and his pronouncements must take that into consideration. Further, whilst we all await costings, I'm not sure I'd believe them.
Derek Smith said:
I can't say, and neither can you. It is too recent.
However, the situation in Scotland was significantly different to that in England/Wales. The average size of police forces was <2000, whereas the norm was considerably lower. I think the majority were sub 1000. They had an entirely different arrangement there with regards major incident enquiries.
The bloke in charge is very political and his pronouncements must take that into consideration. Further, whilst we all await costings, I'm not sure I'd believe them.
Don't worry, Sir Stephen House will soon be on his way out, hopefully his replacement will be less political and more of policing by consent, rather than a para-military style approach that House esposes.However, the situation in Scotland was significantly different to that in England/Wales. The average size of police forces was <2000, whereas the norm was considerably lower. I think the majority were sub 1000. They had an entirely different arrangement there with regards major incident enquiries.
The bloke in charge is very political and his pronouncements must take that into consideration. Further, whilst we all await costings, I'm not sure I'd believe them.
Derek Smith said:
whoami said:
Do you think there were significant cost savings when Police Scotland replaced eight separate forces?
I can't say, and neither can you. It is too recent.However, the situation in Scotland was significantly different to that in England/Wales. The average size of police forces was <2000, whereas the norm was considerably lower. I think the majority were sub 1000. They had an entirely different arrangement there with regards major incident enquiries.
The bloke in charge is very political and his pronouncements must take that into consideration. Further, whilst we all await costings, I'm not sure I'd believe them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26690304
La Liga said:
I'm not sure about the leap that preventing drive-offs (a low sophistication, low-level crime), to a higher sophistication level like credit card fraud, or a much more serious one like robbery with weapons.
you having a laugh?you might want to take a look at card fraud and who is perpetrating it...
Scuffers said:
La Liga said:
I'm not sure about the leap that preventing drive-offs (a low sophistication, low-level crime), to a higher sophistication level like credit card fraud, or a much more serious one like robbery with weapons.
you having a laugh?you might want to take a look at card fraud and who is perpetrating it...
La Liga said:
hose doing drive-offs? Or more accurately, those, who if you take drive-offs away from, would do it (but how would you know / measure them since they can still do drive-offs?).
please tell me you actually have more of an understanding of the current crimes?card crime is very much perpetrated by the same people doing all kinds of 'low level' crime.
They're all under the umbrella of 'dishonesty crimes', so there's no doubt overlap. The point you're making is that pre-payment = more credit card fraud, or more specifically to the degree / scale it's a major threat / consideration. I don't see the direct link given the physical nature of how the fraud needs to be. The card has to be stolen with the PIN, or physically cloned. The first usually has a limited window before it's reported and the stealing and obtaining the PIN adds another barrier, so it's a two-stage crime rather than one. The skimming / cloning is much more sophisticated and limited. The behaviour of the physical frauds usually revolves around 'cash machine runs'. I don't see that behaviour changing much.
'Remote purchase fraud' i.e. phishing, 'card not present' and other non-physical credit card frauds make up the bulk of credit car fraud, and aren't relevant to drive-offs.
'Remote purchase fraud' i.e. phishing, 'card not present' and other non-physical credit card frauds make up the bulk of credit car fraud, and aren't relevant to drive-offs.
whoami said:
Seems they did make savings and are ahead of schedule for the rest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26690304
The amalgamations have to work and have to be justified. However, most of the savings are from reductions in staffing and pro rata, the Scots appear to have lost fewer staff since 2013 than the unamalgamated English/Welsh forces. Using that logic we can say that amalgamation is expensive.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26690304
As I said, we don't know. These figures are problematic at best. Change such as this costs a lot to implement. Planning alone must have taken a considerable number of man-hours. Then there's the implementation. I seriously doubt - and that's putting it mildly - that the full on-costs were included. It was a political calculation.
The government's costs for the implementation of PACE excluded the majority of on-costs. They suggested that they paid most of the costs and that the rest would come from other savings. The statistics are out there which show how much money PACE saved.
Just to clarify, and to head off any accusations of being a Luddite, I fully supported the implementation of PACE at the time despite seriously underestimating just how effective it would be. It has its faults but overall it is one of the better pieces of legislation. It was true reform of the service. Shame it wasn't fully funded.
I wouldn't trust the government, nor those who work for them, if they told me the cost of items in Poundland.
The police in England/Wales are saving money by not going to jobs which do not require police attendance. This used to be justified as reassurance but I reckon it was done just to stop people suggesting that it was theft and that the police didn't consider it a crime.
Guam said:
MarshPhantom said:
f
king hell, I give up. Pay for the petrol before you fill up, end of problem.
I shall leave you to it.
I agree I use the truck pumps when I am towing and there you have to leave your CC at the till before filling up, so you have no option but return to pay after filling, also in the US they have credit card pumps or the option to leave the card behind the tills. I see no issue with this as a procedure except of course the costs to the Oil companies of the new pumps king hell, I give up. Pay for the petrol before you fill up, end of problem.I shall leave you to it.
Derek Smith said:
Ah! By HR you mean police pay. Are you suggesting that there would be no local input? No local support required? My fear, and my experience of businesses, is that collective means nothing more that another layer of management. I think the savings level of 60% is rather fanciful. Also, as a little time working with NARPO shows, forces have cut their staff to a minimum, much of it is outsourced, and then have had to cut the costs again. 60% of bugger all is not very much, and certainly not enough to justify another level.
Your idea of IT seems related to the boring, routine stuff. I was under the impression that modern software systems have allowed massive cost savings at the local level as virtually all that is required is someone to input the data. That's what we've been told, so the old fashioned way, which included having someone on call to deal with queries, is a thing of the past.
I'm certain savings can be made but the problem is, as you must know, change costs and costs a lot. At a time when the police have been hit by a 20%+ reduction in budget with something similar coming again, how are they going to pay for this very expensive commodity? Savings is not the answer as before the balance was made, the government would force more changes, as experience shows.
I could give examples where forces have been forced to adopt national standards despite it giving not operational benefits to the force concerned, then when the new system is up and running, the government demands further modification.
You suggest, rather patronisingly, that I'm against progress. I am just the opposite. I have on these forums suggested that the police be allowed to change working practices for more than ten years. In order for the police to do their job properly and to a level the public is entitled to expect, or rather demand, there needs to be a revision of their work. But governments refuse this.
The government came up with the brilliant idea of having HATO, something I was very supportive of. A good idea I felt and one that could be expanded. And look at it now. The police requirement has, if anything, increased. PCSOs was a good idea at its basic premise, and another supported by me, but it has saved the police nothing. I am willing to bet that it has increased costs. And there are more. One of the best ways of allowing the police to modernise is to ensure the government keeps its nose out of things.
You suggest modifying the number of forces as progress. I'm not sure that's going to help the police perform effectively in any way. A bit of sticking plaster at best.
I thought the idea of bigger is better was demonstrated as false by industry many, many years ago.
Yes, police pay and HR stuff. Fairly standard terms and conditions across England. The sort of thing that should be fairly easily achieved. There are around 209,000 people on the police payroll (March 2014) spread across 43 forces. Centralising that should (and would, in a semi-well run commercial organisation) produce considerable savings.Your idea of IT seems related to the boring, routine stuff. I was under the impression that modern software systems have allowed massive cost savings at the local level as virtually all that is required is someone to input the data. That's what we've been told, so the old fashioned way, which included having someone on call to deal with queries, is a thing of the past.
I'm certain savings can be made but the problem is, as you must know, change costs and costs a lot. At a time when the police have been hit by a 20%+ reduction in budget with something similar coming again, how are they going to pay for this very expensive commodity? Savings is not the answer as before the balance was made, the government would force more changes, as experience shows.
I could give examples where forces have been forced to adopt national standards despite it giving not operational benefits to the force concerned, then when the new system is up and running, the government demands further modification.
You suggest, rather patronisingly, that I'm against progress. I am just the opposite. I have on these forums suggested that the police be allowed to change working practices for more than ten years. In order for the police to do their job properly and to a level the public is entitled to expect, or rather demand, there needs to be a revision of their work. But governments refuse this.
The government came up with the brilliant idea of having HATO, something I was very supportive of. A good idea I felt and one that could be expanded. And look at it now. The police requirement has, if anything, increased. PCSOs was a good idea at its basic premise, and another supported by me, but it has saved the police nothing. I am willing to bet that it has increased costs. And there are more. One of the best ways of allowing the police to modernise is to ensure the government keeps its nose out of things.
You suggest modifying the number of forces as progress. I'm not sure that's going to help the police perform effectively in any way. A bit of sticking plaster at best.
I thought the idea of bigger is better was demonstrated as false by industry many, many years ago.
Against that is the civil service mindset legacy, and a degree of not-invented-here resistance. I'd agree entirely that HMG should stop its political interference, but that is a forlorn hope.
xjsdriver said:
Don't worry, Sir Stephen House will soon be on his way out, hopefully his replacement will be less political and more of policing by consent, rather than a para-military style approach that House esposes.
I didn't know he was under threat. I know he's upset a few people.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff