Petrol theft is not a crime
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
Elroy Blue said:
You are absolutely a caricature of yourself. Your also cluless.
In TB's defence, at least he can read & write properly.Two mistakes in a three word sentence is an impressive example of irony when calling someone clueless.
A personal attack from EB, never expected that
If the claim is that the BMJ, ONS, DM and PH are conspiring to make senior police look incompetent, then a bullet proof defence for all the accused has to include the point that no assistance is needed.
Daily Mail as messenger gets shot, police fail to investigate
but smear DM and PHer online instead.Petrol Station Owner perspective:
'He was told officers would only respond if there was obvious intent to steal – such as a car having false number plates.'
Devon & Cornwall Police perspective:
'A force spokesman said a customer making off without paying was not considered to be committing an offence if there was no indication of intent.'
Clear as crystal.
Surely other PHers who support the police when they're doing their difficult job well - rather than abrogating responsibility under a figleaf of politicised prioritising - wish that senior police would present themselves and their police forces services in a better light...this nonsense from Devon & Cornwall of all places is not going to increase confidence in police and will erode public support.
Playing politics is not the job of police.
Playing politics is not the job of police.
RYH64E said:
pingu393 said:
A tab is usually set up using a swipe of a credit card.
Rarely in my experience, perhaps I've just got an honest face but all of our local pubs are happy to run a tab and settle at the end without swiping a card in advance.1. those based ona swipe - usually in the pub come family restaurant chains
2. a genuine tab in your 'local' pub where you are reasonably well know to the landlord / manager
turbobloke said:
Surely other PHers who support the police when they're doing their difficult job well - rather than abrogating responsibility under a figleaf of politicised prioritising - wish that senior police would present themselves and their police forces services in a better light...this nonsense from Devon & Cornwall of all places is not going to increase confidence in police and will erode public support.
Playing politics is not the job of police.
Those playing politics delude themselves that they are actually helping the public. They always seem to have some data proving that they're in line with what the public wants yet it rarely seems to gel with me. I have to say though, that I agree 100% with petrol theft deprioritisation, even if I'm suspicious of the motives. I look forward to a similarly common sense approach when it comes to social media bullying, ludicrous 'hate crimes' and other easy distractions, and when the Police and other authorities, so concerned with road safety (speeding) spend some time ticketing cars parked on corners, cars parked facing oncoming traffic overnight and cars with defective lights.Playing politics is not the job of police.
Where does the force blame the cuts? The quote the DM has butchered uses words to move away from that accusation as much as possible.
As others have mentioned, there are obvious ways to remove this crime. Yes, there are the shops which account for the profit, but people will still pre-pay inside, no? The same time is taken whether you fuel or pay, or pay and fuel. At least begin with asking for pre-payment at the most risky times.
We've also not had the one incident fallacy yet, where someone will highlight one example that used lots of policing resources, and extrapolate it to mean there are lots of resources all of the time.
I assume you acknowledge there is a threshold of cuts where the front line begins to be impacted. How can you conclude this hasn't been reached so far?
My experience and opinion is that we're past that threshold. The idea there's lots of back-office, 'desk-jockey' type people there to be deployed is a fallacy. Most back-office people are support staff i.e. lower-paid non-police officers who are doing essential tasks to prevent police officers having to do it. One of the best examples is preparing and developing evidential files for court. There are fewer people doing that, and likely to be fewer still in the coming years. Who has to pick it up? It'll be warranted officers.
Most forces have "scrapped, reduced or merged" their neighbourhood teams since 2010 (33 / 44). They're not doing it for fun, it's because the risk associated with a lack of capacity to respond / deal with prisoners is greater than the risk of not doing community policing. It's nothing to do with politics and making a point, it's a restructure born out of necessity.
Prioritisation and asking what we can / cannot do are constantly in the frame.
Over all, it's very simple. The majority of demand isn't being reduced, and it's been divided amongst fewer people. Something has to give.
If I had a private business that faced significant reductions, I'd have to make choices as to what we would and wouldn't do. And that wouldn't be in a much less restricted environment in terms of legislative /statutory obligations.
As others have mentioned, there are obvious ways to remove this crime. Yes, there are the shops which account for the profit, but people will still pre-pay inside, no? The same time is taken whether you fuel or pay, or pay and fuel. At least begin with asking for pre-payment at the most risky times.
We've also not had the one incident fallacy yet, where someone will highlight one example that used lots of policing resources, and extrapolate it to mean there are lots of resources all of the time.
turbobloke said:
The idea that budget cuts require front line service reductions is totally false.
You are right, it isn't automatic. The first year of cuts / savings saw things like cooks being made redundant and cafeterias closing. Very much non-essential things being removed which won't impact upon the front line. I assume you acknowledge there is a threshold of cuts where the front line begins to be impacted. How can you conclude this hasn't been reached so far?
My experience and opinion is that we're past that threshold. The idea there's lots of back-office, 'desk-jockey' type people there to be deployed is a fallacy. Most back-office people are support staff i.e. lower-paid non-police officers who are doing essential tasks to prevent police officers having to do it. One of the best examples is preparing and developing evidential files for court. There are fewer people doing that, and likely to be fewer still in the coming years. Who has to pick it up? It'll be warranted officers.
Most forces have "scrapped, reduced or merged" their neighbourhood teams since 2010 (33 / 44). They're not doing it for fun, it's because the risk associated with a lack of capacity to respond / deal with prisoners is greater than the risk of not doing community policing. It's nothing to do with politics and making a point, it's a restructure born out of necessity.
Prioritisation and asking what we can / cannot do are constantly in the frame.
turbobloke said:
Indeed. Nor have senior police ever sacked themselves or reduced their salaries and benefits before playing politician and disrupting front line services as visibly as possible to make a political point.
They're trying their best not to disrupt front-line services, and certainly not those that present the most risk and are the most essential. I don't understand that automatic link between these sort of decisions and you concluding that it's a political move. You must have more than just speculating it's the case. Over all, it's very simple. The majority of demand isn't being reduced, and it's been divided amongst fewer people. Something has to give.
If I had a private business that faced significant reductions, I'd have to make choices as to what we would and wouldn't do. And that wouldn't be in a much less restricted environment in terms of legislative /statutory obligations.
9mm said:
I look forward to a similarly common sense approach when it comes to social media bullying, ludicrous 'hate crimes' and other easy distractions
No senior officer wants their officers wasting time with people sending one another stupid messages over social media. The issue is one where I talk above with the legislative /statutory obligations. Often these are of a domestic context, and, roughly, one in five-thousand domestic calls to the police is a domestic murder. When that inevitable call comes in, you don't want to be the officer who treated the social media threats with the contempt most deserve. The IPCC certainly won't keep such perspective. High impact, low probability events, in a risk-based environment, often use up a lot of time, most of it 'wasted'. Airport security works on this principle. Nearly everyone who gets on a plane isn't trying to blow it up, but the risk of it being done causes us to have lots of security people doing lots of work and spending lots of time around non-existent risk. turbobloke said:
Playing politics is not the job of police.
I feel that a reminder of this might be relevant:Sir Robert Peel's Nine Points of policing
•The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
•The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
•Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
•The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
•Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
•Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
•Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
•Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
• The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
I await being told that this is not relevant to modern policing.
Rovinghawk said:
I await being told that this is not relevant to modern policing.
I think the relevance (and evidence) of linking this policy-change decision to the police paying politics is more important first. It appears no more than, 1) Someone has said it 2) People have gone on to accept it as fact. Rovinghawk said:
feel that a reminder of this might be relevant:
Sir Robert Peel's Nine Points of policing
•The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
•The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
•Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
•The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
•Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
•Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
•Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
•Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
• The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
I await being told that this is not relevant to modern policing.
Nope, it's how most cops would like things to be.Sir Robert Peel's Nine Points of policing
•The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
•The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
•Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
•The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
•Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
•Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
•Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
•Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
• The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
I await being told that this is not relevant to modern policing.
Unfortunately, with "reform" (and by that I mean "reform" by muppets who have no clue about policing) and politics thrown into the mix it is not how things are.
La Liga said:
Where does the force blame the cuts? The quote the DM has butchered uses words to move away from that accusation as much as possible.
Not sure what you mean by the last bit but the implication of existing resource levels (alluding to funding cuts) is obvious.D&CP line: "Devon and Cornwall Police said the changes to its fuel ‘bilkings’ policy were necessary to provide the ‘best service possible’ with ‘the existing resources’."
DM then said: "Because of Government cuts, the force must reduce spending by £51 million."
It's obvious.
La Liga said:
As others have mentioned, there are obvious ways to remove this crime. Yes, there are the shops which account for the profit, but people will still pre-pay inside, no? The same time is taken whether you fuel or pay, or pay and fuel. At least begin with asking for pre-payment at the most risky times.
True enough but if you want to brim the tank how much do you know you need to pay for in advance? It's about acceptable and unacceptable levels of inconvenience, since crime will lose money but then so will loss of custom.La Liga said:
We've also not had the one incident fallacy yet, where someone will highlight one example that used lots of policing resources, and extrapolate it to mean there are lots of resources all of the time.
Really? That's been on PH previously? Do you have a link?Is it more about comment on deployment of existing resources rather than lots of resources e.g. a relatively minor incident appears to get every (bored) car on duty attending. And yes, who knows, the granny who hit the gas pedal not the brake pedal may be tooled up, but not really
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
The idea that budget cuts require front line service reductions is totally false.
You are right, it isn't automatic. The first year of cuts / savings saw things like cooks being made redundant and cafeterias closing. Very much non-essential things being removed which won't impact upon the front line. La Liga said:
I assume you acknowledge there is a threshold of cuts where the front line begins to be impacted. How can you conclude this hasn't been reached so far?
Yes to the first question in principle, but then again crime levels are falling so how can you conclude it has?Further to the second point, I haven't seen any senior BiB in the media whining about their pay cut / pension cut / being made redundant / having to sack themselves to preserve front line effectiveness. That would be a refreshing change but we both know it's as likely as Devon and Cornwall police attending a bilking these days
La Liga said:
My experience and opinion is that we're past that threshold. The idea there's lots of back-office, 'desk-jockey' type people there to be deployed is a fallacy.
The type of desk jockey I've been referring to isn't well-described by 'back office' more by 'braid'. As above, where are these senior job cuts that would save a decent amount of money? First off any Deputy or Assistant or Assistant Deputy or Deputy Assistant should be out. Second tier blame takers are made unaffordable when attenting crime is claimed to be unafforadable. Let's then see if the claims change.La Liga said:
Most back-office people are support staff i.e. lower-paid non-police officers who are doing essential tasks to prevent police officers having to do it.
As above and as is quite clear from my previous posts, given that these are not highly paid in general they are not the personnel I've been referring to. The desk jockeys I've been referring to are clearly identified as braid, those making the politicised decisions to cut front line services rather than their own numbers / salaries / on-costs.La Liga said:
One of the best examples is preparing and developing evidential files for court. There are fewer people doing that, and likely to be fewer still in the coming years. Who has to pick it up? It'll be warranted officers.
Not applicable, as above. La Liga said:
Most forces have "scrapped, reduced or merged" their neighbourhood teams since 2010 (33 / 44). They're not doing it for fun, it's because the risk associated with a lack of capacity to respond / deal with prisoners is greater than the risk of not doing community policing. It's nothing to do with politics and making a point, it's a restructure born out of necessity.
With respect, I disagree. When the second tier and other sundry braid is sqealing then I'll reconsider.La Liga said:
Prioritisation and asking what we can / cannot do are constantly in the frame.
Absolutely. Senior well-paid and well-pensioned staff getting rid of their own jobs to save significant amounts of money never seems to be in the frame though, and once again to be clear, this is not civilian staff etc.La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
Indeed. Nor have senior police ever sacked themselves or reduced their salaries and benefits before playing politician and disrupting front line services as visibly as possible to make a political point.
They're trying their best not to disrupt front-line services, and certainly not those that present the most risk and are the most essential. I don't understand that automatic link between these sort of decisions and you concluding that it's a political move. You must have more than just speculating it's the case.La Liga said:
Over all, it's very simple. The majority of demand isn't being reduced, and it's been divided amongst fewer people. Something has to give.
See above.La Liga said:
If I had a private business that faced significant reductions, I'd have to make choices as to what we would and wouldn't do. And that wouldn't be in a much less restricted environment in terms of legislative /statutory obligations.
Agreed, and middle managers plus second tier senior managers would be the first to go. They cost the most. Where is this happening in sufficient numbers with police? Was it not as far back as 1995 that Chief Supers were abolished - yet Government data (2013) shows 366 still around. It's time for something similar with Deputy Assistant Whatevers, the amount saved per ACPO rank is signifiant with on-costs included. Also, by way of giving as fair an account as possible, I did also hear of one force considering the removal of Chief Inspectors to fund more Constables. A great idea, but I can't recall reading that it actually happened.The government isn't much of a help, if you try to find information on numbers of police by rank, the first thing to pop up is how many ethnic minority police are in X rank, typical of the p-c 'priority' in police circles these days. No matter if a senior role being occupied is genuinely viable or the occupants of any particular role are the very best applicants available, as long as there's a Diversity Officer similing over a set of ticked boxes all must be well.
I done this by accident, I filled up and brought a load of stuff from the m&s shop, I said the pump number but the cashier forgot whilst scanning my items I never bothered checking the amount and just typed my pin in, about two weeks later I got a letter from the police saying I had not paid for my fuel and to check the amount in future, they told me to pay at the garage. So I took the letter showed it to a cashier and paid! Highly embarrassing but I'm sure it's quite common as they have notice's by the tills now saying "please check you have paid for your fuel with your shopping" either that or I was the first which led them to displaying the notes
I'm sure they knew there was no intent as I lived 5 minutes away
I'm sure they knew there was no intent as I lived 5 minutes away
La Liga said:
We've also not had the one incident fallacy yet
Quite surprising, really, bearing in mind how many of these 'one incidents' there are.La Liga said:
Most back-office people are support staff i.e. lower-paid non-police officers who are doing essential tasks to prevent police officers having to do it.
I'm not sure how this sits with the comments made in various threads (not necessarily by yourself) that police officers are having to fulfil these functions.La Liga said:
Prioritisation and asking what we can / cannot do are constantly in the frame.
There would appear to be a lot of 'one incident' occasions when this would appear to have been done badly. I'll use Charlie Hebdo newsagents as the example & you can tell me that this was insignificant, as was the helicopter/firearms response to the grazing cow and all the other 'one incident' events.Gargamel said:
There are still 48 separate Police Services, One would think that cost reductions might be achieved by further merging Services and "back office roles"
I am all for local accountability, but that can be achieved in other ways
43 - in England and Wales.I am all for local accountability, but that can be achieved in other ways
+ Police Scotland = 44 (but the law is different in Scotland).
BTP, CNC and MOD police are non- Home Office forces.
Pistonheads - being pedantic matters.
TB, I don't accept "it's obvious" as being sufficient to say they're playing politics. How come they can't just be being truthful and are stating why they've made a change? Decisions like this need making. It's not possible to meet the same demand with many fewer people.
I think the 'getting rid of managers' can be a bit of a default comment. Senor officers have been reduced (I can't find any data about this quickly, either), but an amount is necessary to function. We've got rid of a few Superintendents, Chief Inspector and Inspector roles and have managed to survive, so I agree with you there was a little too much fat around this area. Some are 'no-brainers' - you get rid of neighbourhoods you get rid of the management structure that went with it. I have to be honest and say I don't really have the expertise or experience to say whether more can go or not. My initial reaction would be to suggest probably not many more. The less-essential, more corporate roles they once occupied tend to have cheaper, non-warranted management running them now e.g. no superintendent in charge of communications (call handling, dispatch and other bits). They work a lot of hours and have a lot of responsibilities and have unique roles with their rank that no one else can do e.g. firearms commander, legislative powers and authorities. I wouldn't do their job for the money and the hours I know they work.
The Chief Superintendent rank still exists. They tend to run "Basic Command Units" and the like, so can be in charge of over 1000 staff and an area where over half a million people live.
The main issue is scale. We're not tweaking around the edges where saving a few million across the country on management will cut it, and that assumes we can cut a significant amount more without the impact being too negative vs the benefit of the savings. Even if that were the case, it isn't going to do much. Even if you were to abolish the rank of Chief Superintendent, that'd equate to what, around 15% of the reductions required nationally just this year?
For me, the last Labour government made a misjudgment by not merging forces. It spent a fair bit reviewing it and looking into it. A lot of smaller forces have done this themselves with the centralised corporate functions like HR / training etc, but there's so much more that can he had from this area, but requires, I imagine, legislative change. There's no way to justify the smallest forces having their own ACPO ranks. They should be merged. There are also policing functions that have been merged. The helicopters being an obvious example, but things like dog units (of which we've cut about 70% IIRC) are being merged with another force's dog section and will cover a much greater area. There's talk of our traffic, firearms and specialist support teams merging with one another, then with another force's, too.
I think the 'getting rid of managers' can be a bit of a default comment. Senor officers have been reduced (I can't find any data about this quickly, either), but an amount is necessary to function. We've got rid of a few Superintendents, Chief Inspector and Inspector roles and have managed to survive, so I agree with you there was a little too much fat around this area. Some are 'no-brainers' - you get rid of neighbourhoods you get rid of the management structure that went with it. I have to be honest and say I don't really have the expertise or experience to say whether more can go or not. My initial reaction would be to suggest probably not many more. The less-essential, more corporate roles they once occupied tend to have cheaper, non-warranted management running them now e.g. no superintendent in charge of communications (call handling, dispatch and other bits). They work a lot of hours and have a lot of responsibilities and have unique roles with their rank that no one else can do e.g. firearms commander, legislative powers and authorities. I wouldn't do their job for the money and the hours I know they work.
The Chief Superintendent rank still exists. They tend to run "Basic Command Units" and the like, so can be in charge of over 1000 staff and an area where over half a million people live.
The main issue is scale. We're not tweaking around the edges where saving a few million across the country on management will cut it, and that assumes we can cut a significant amount more without the impact being too negative vs the benefit of the savings. Even if that were the case, it isn't going to do much. Even if you were to abolish the rank of Chief Superintendent, that'd equate to what, around 15% of the reductions required nationally just this year?
For me, the last Labour government made a misjudgment by not merging forces. It spent a fair bit reviewing it and looking into it. A lot of smaller forces have done this themselves with the centralised corporate functions like HR / training etc, but there's so much more that can he had from this area, but requires, I imagine, legislative change. There's no way to justify the smallest forces having their own ACPO ranks. They should be merged. There are also policing functions that have been merged. The helicopters being an obvious example, but things like dog units (of which we've cut about 70% IIRC) are being merged with another force's dog section and will cover a much greater area. There's talk of our traffic, firearms and specialist support teams merging with one another, then with another force's, too.
Gargamel said:
One would think that cost reductions might be achieved by further merging Services and "back office roles"
I am all for local accountability, but that can be achieved in other ways
Agreed, and as above some of this is occurring. To do it on a larger scale requires the Government. I am all for local accountability, but that can be achieved in other ways
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff