Petrol theft is not a crime
Discussion
I work in a supermarket petrol staion in Cornwall, and the local police have always been very helpful.
We get a couple of non-payers each day, generally people who have forgotten their wallet/purse, or their card gets declined. Most of them come back to pay within the 7 day grace period. Some customers use as as a bank, tiding them over until pay day. Repeat offenders are asked to pay before we authorise the pump.
We have a couple of "drive-offs" a week, equally split between those who get straight back into their cars, and those who come into the shop, but don't pay for their fuel.
A fair percentage of those who drive off actually come straight back, they just forgot to pay.
The worst cases are those who come in, pay for other goods, but not their fuel. Was it cashier error, forgetfulness, or deception? Difficult to prove.
I would have thought that fuel theft would be good for police crime clear up figures, given that there is usually CCTV evidence, and most people will just come back and pay after a cop turns up on their doorstep?
We get a couple of non-payers each day, generally people who have forgotten their wallet/purse, or their card gets declined. Most of them come back to pay within the 7 day grace period. Some customers use as as a bank, tiding them over until pay day. Repeat offenders are asked to pay before we authorise the pump.
We have a couple of "drive-offs" a week, equally split between those who get straight back into their cars, and those who come into the shop, but don't pay for their fuel.
A fair percentage of those who drive off actually come straight back, they just forgot to pay.
The worst cases are those who come in, pay for other goods, but not their fuel. Was it cashier error, forgetfulness, or deception? Difficult to prove.
I would have thought that fuel theft would be good for police crime clear up figures, given that there is usually CCTV evidence, and most people will just come back and pay after a cop turns up on their doorstep?
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
Where will the savings come from? Big is better is received wisdom but there are particular problems with it.I am all for local accountability, but that can be achieved in other ways
What specific 'back office roles' do you think the police could usefully merge? Things like forensic investigation? Process units?
I've just received a conditional witness order from a unit in Essex for a job I was involved with in Brighton, so you can see that much of the cross border cooperation is already happening.
Do you think there would be a lot of common ground between, say, Cumberland and Greater Manchester?
One of the major criticisms of the Met police is that its sheer size produces particular problems. A few years ago they tried to divide the force into virtual autonomous units.
I always thought that the problem with the SPG, or rather one of the problems, there were a few, was that it went anywhere and had no local responsibility. Many officers who policed Streatham blamed an operation by the SPG for causing riots. The local units were aware that they would have to go back the following day and walk the same streets. Or, to put it another way, policing by consent, which someone mentioned earlier.
Some think that unit costs of major purchases would drop, but that rather negated by the fact that local police buy so infrequently and then often go for the cheapest then can get in any case. I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks that a government unit bulk buying would be cheaper for forces.
Not having a particular go at you, but there is a certain conceit in making obvious suggestions for cost savings. The one thing where unification might be helpful is in all the individual units struggling with massively reduced budgets when much of the cost is not under their control.
Costs can be reduced considerably, but that requires the government to change the rules. Paperwork increases every year, taking up officers' time now that much of the back room civilianisation has been lost. The police should, perhaps, be given the power to refuse to do functions which are not their responsibility. I doubt that if the police did not have to deal with those mentally ill it would automatically mean that they would attend drive offs, but it might make attendance at a burglary more likely.
In my old force, the amount of process going through has obviously reduced considerably with the drop in police numbers, but new labour, bless it, forced us to go through PFI for process. So we pay a fortune for less work and that money cannot be cut.
Savings in bulk if there was just one force for England and one for Wales, or one for the pair, is something of a myth. Some forces could, usefully, amalgamate with savings, but what would be the advantages of, for instance, having a south east force, covering Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hants? It would require a new level of supervision. A car patrolling the Medway towns is never going to answer a call for urgent assistance in Portsmouth. Yet in the middle 90s Kent were first on scene to a foot officer being seriously injured in Sussex.
Rovinghawk said:
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.
I think the point is more the 'back-office' essentials are then done by front line officers, therefore adding to their workload when there are fewer of them. Rovinghawk said:
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.
There may be a few thousand. That sounds a like a lot. When you consider they are from a sample of 9.6 million incidents per year (IIRC), we get the required perspective. You need some meaningful frequency, repetition and consistency with incidents to really be able to make meaningful time-saving and policy decisions upon them.
If there were thousands of cows (grazing? Or running into bus roads) escaping every week, then perhaps there'd be some way to precisely measure resource allocation. There's no harm in allocating resources to a one-off, dynamic and unusual incident. I also don't want to imply I'm agreeing it was over-resourced as there appears to have been a real risk of one or more of them causing an RTC on some of the faster roads. The Police apparently described one as 'very angry', too
There's no need to worry about the atypical in such a vast sample. Looking at things, like drive-offs, and how you can change the policy around that equates to a meaningful saving in time because of the frequency of the event.
I tend to agree with both sides of the argument here.
This strikes me as a pretty easy thing for the supermarkets/petrol stations to resolve themselves. Yes, there'd likely be a touch more inconvenience for the customer, but so what? We're a captive audience and if sufficient of our number are wrong uns then so be it. And maybe the stations would lose business from other lines - so be that too. If it means fuel can't be used as some sort of loss leader then put the prices up.
Equally, however, I do get a feeling that police forces are using things like this, less bobbies on the beat etc etc as a means of trying to influence the political decisions being made.
It would be interesting to see the numbers removed at the different rank levels during the cuts, and which areas of the force(s) have been cut back the most. And also to see crime rates/statistics overlaid independently.
Anecdotal or not, there are sufficient stories/instances of wastage (Ecuadorian embassy noted above; xx officers to shoot a cow in another recent thread etc etc etc) to make it difficult for the layman to think that a straight bat is being played.
This strikes me as a pretty easy thing for the supermarkets/petrol stations to resolve themselves. Yes, there'd likely be a touch more inconvenience for the customer, but so what? We're a captive audience and if sufficient of our number are wrong uns then so be it. And maybe the stations would lose business from other lines - so be that too. If it means fuel can't be used as some sort of loss leader then put the prices up.
Equally, however, I do get a feeling that police forces are using things like this, less bobbies on the beat etc etc as a means of trying to influence the political decisions being made.
It would be interesting to see the numbers removed at the different rank levels during the cuts, and which areas of the force(s) have been cut back the most. And also to see crime rates/statistics overlaid independently.
Anecdotal or not, there are sufficient stories/instances of wastage (Ecuadorian embassy noted above; xx officers to shoot a cow in another recent thread etc etc etc) to make it difficult for the layman to think that a straight bat is being played.
unmanned petrol stations ? Its a good way to get prepaid in the back door. You wont get fuel theft there as the pump needs to have money before it dispenses. It should be adopted and rolled out nationwide. Pay at the pump ? simplifies and ensures that the petrol is bought and it stops the issues around fuel theft.
if you look at just how much fuel theft there is then it really needs to be sorted out
if you look at just how much fuel theft there is then it really needs to be sorted out
ruggedscotty said:
unmanned petrol stations ? Its a good way to get prepaid in the back door. You wont get fuel theft there as the pump needs to have money before it dispenses. It should be adopted and rolled out nationwide. Pay at the pump ? simplifies and ensures that the petrol is bought and it stops the issues around fuel theft.
if you look at just how much fuel theft there is then it really needs to be sorted out
Welcome to credit card fraud...if you look at just how much fuel theft there is then it really needs to be sorted out
Red 4 said:
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.
while the firecontrol mergers didn;t go through as planned a number of services have merged their control rooms etc and are sharing back office functions either with the rest of the county council and/or with other regional FRSes
9mm said:
Langweilig said:
stuttgartmetal said:
Next it will be unmanned petrol stations.
Progress.
Already here, mate.Progress.
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/464692/Shell-in...
Yeah unmanned stations aren't a new thing are they? Our local Asda petrol station has been completely unmanned for years? No drive always there!
Ironically it's in Devon so I will have to go elsewhere to steal my fuel.
each of the 43 forces will head a Head of Finance, Head of It, Head of HR and presumably each will have there own systems, working practices and ways of doing stuff.
Could easily merge the whole lot and strip out duplication, standardise processes and produce efficiencies. Like corporates have done for the last 20 years.
Could easily merge the whole lot and strip out duplication, standardise processes and produce efficiencies. Like corporates have done for the last 20 years.
eldar said:
Derek Smith said:
What specific 'back office roles' do you think the police could usefully merge? Things like forensic investigation? Process units?
HR, IT, vehicles etc. Boring business administration stuff that one system rather than 40 different ones can do.IT? There are some savings to be had there at the efficiency level but, and it is a big but, we have seen lots of problems with other companies that have gone for a great unified whole. Also, the last thing the police needs is a choice of one. My old force went for a smaller company which wanted to break into the speciality and we got our one at a snip. It is competition that will bring prices down, not all having to go for one.
As for vehicles, that's the last thing the police could afford. The then government suggested a contractor to buy vehicles with all the 'savings in bulk' promised. However, almost all forces have systems in place to ensure they get cheap cars at their cheapest. Manufacturers contact forces when they've got vehicles to shift. If a company pays the government £millions for the joy of having a captive customer base, then it will be the police which has to foot the bill.
Something I know about: when I was running an ID unit I came up with a plan for video film identification, purely for my force. There was a Home Office one but that was of lower quality that I could produce, took longer (24 hours the norm in my case, but down to less than an hour if the case necessitated, five days for the HO one). Not only that but we could pay for the software, hardware and training and yet, even if we included man-hours, my system paid for itself within 12 months.
The HO put up a fight because they had a nice little earner.
There are lots of arguments against a whole England/Wales force. There are some for, but I'm not sure vehicles, IT and HR are enough.
There are other routes, such as regional organisations. Those that are already in existence are under threat due to the cuts oddly enough.
If the country wants the cheapest police force in Europe, then just cutting the funding is a ludicrous way of going about it. There has to be major modifications to structure, work load, red tape and more and more. However, there will be massive privatisation of various functions of the service in years to come. Civilianisation has taken a massive hit with the cuts out of necessity and that is a disaster.
The service needs reform but that's not happening. May is antagonistic towards the police. There's no cooperation, no working together. The sooner she either gets the top job or realises she's not going to get it the better for everyone.
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.
While I agree that it is a preventable crime with things such as manually operated entry/exit barriers or even a membership card scheme where you input a card and pin at the pump, no card? go in and pay in advance.
But it is most definitely a police matter and I would suggest that the police are in dereliction of their duty by not acting.
But it is most definitely a police matter and I would suggest that the police are in dereliction of their duty by not acting.
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
Derek Smith said:
eldar said:
Derek Smith said:
What specific 'back office roles' do you think the police could usefully merge? Things like forensic investigation? Process units?
HR, IT, vehicles etc. Boring business administration stuff that one system rather than 40 different ones can do.IT? There are some savings to be had there at the efficiency level but, and it is a big but, we have seen lots of problems with other companies that have gone for a great unified whole. Also, the last thing the police needs is a choice of one. My old force went for a smaller company which wanted to break into the speciality and we got our one at a snip. It is competition that will bring prices down, not all having to go for one.
As for vehicles, that's the last thing the police could afford. The then government suggested a contractor to buy vehicles with all the 'savings in bulk' promised. However, almost all forces have systems in place to ensure they get cheap cars at their cheapest. Manufacturers contact forces when they've got vehicles to shift. If a company pays the government £millions for the joy of having a captive customer base, then it will be the police which has to foot the bill.
Something I know about: when I was running an ID unit I came up with a plan for video film identification, purely for my force. There was a Home Office one but that was of lower quality that I could produce, took longer (24 hours the norm in my case, but down to less than an hour if the case necessitated, five days for the HO one). Not only that but we could pay for the software, hardware and training and yet, even if we included man-hours, my system paid for itself within 12 months.
The HO put up a fight because they had a nice little earner.
There are lots of arguments against a whole England/Wales force. There are some for, but I'm not sure vehicles, IT and HR are enough.
There are other routes, such as regional organisations. Those that are already in existence are under threat due to the cuts oddly enough.
If the country wants the cheapest police force in Europe, then just cutting the funding is a ludicrous way of going about it. There has to be major modifications to structure, work load, red tape and more and more. However, there will be massive privatisation of various functions of the service in years to come. Civilianisation has taken a massive hit with the cuts out of necessity and that is a disaster.
The service needs reform but that's not happening. May is antagonistic towards the police. There's no cooperation, no working together. The sooner she either gets the top job or realises she's not going to get it the better for everyone.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff