Home Office to charge police officers for a requirement
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
It is no coincidence that the federation funded a civil case against a foul-mouthed MP just before funding was cut.
Yes, how did that go when the Police decided to get political, anti- government and lied? Repeatedly?. Over one bad word which is used every day. Even by Police officers. Did the British population fully support you then? Derek Smith said:
The nasty home secretary.
There is a lot which is wrong with our police force and needs to be changed. Its brave of someone to take you on. 340600 said:
Decimation as in, we barely have enough staff or resources to carry out our duties properly any more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-32800365BBC said:
He said there was a "massive police presence" with more than 15 police vehicles, a helicopter hovering overhead, and three or four officers in sniper gear.
williamp said:
Yes, how did that go when the Police decided to get political, anti- government and lied? Repeatedly?. Over one bad word which is used every day. Even by Police officers. Did the British population fully support you then?
As much as they have for about the past 30 years http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26730705Other surveys asking other questions around things like confidence showed no impact of what you're talking about, either.
BBC said:
Polling evidence suggests that whether or not public trust in police is as high as it should be, it hasn't been much affected by the recent bad news. Research company Ipsos MORI asked members of the public earlier this month if they would "generally trust the police to tell the truth or not". Sixty-five per cent said they would, compared with 31% who wouldn't. That rating is as high as trust in police has been since 1983, when Ipsos MORI - which has the longest-running series on trust compared with other polling firms - first asked the question.
williamp said:
There is a lot which is wrong with our police force and needs to be changed. Its brave of someone to take you on.
Not in the way I expect you think or in the manner that will be changed. Crime going down (according to the same Home Sec), prisons full. Seems the fundamentals work. I don't think you understand what "she's" doing. She's not "taking the police on" in terms of reform, which is what you appear to think when you falsely claim, "there's lots wrong", funding is being reduced, which essentially means less of the same.
alock said:
340600 said:
Decimation as in, we barely have enough staff or resources to carry out our duties properly any more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-32800365BBC said:
He said there was a "massive police presence" with more than 15 police vehicles, a helicopter hovering overhead, and three or four officers in sniper gear.
An Ambulance may turn up to a minor injury on Wednesday at 11am. That means it can't be possible on a Saturday night the highest grade emergencies have to wait for sometime on some occasions, according to that 'logic'.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
The 'one incident fallacy'
There's a lot of these 'one incident's, though.La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
There's plenty of less spectacular examples of wasted time- some have been cited on this thread. You have to stop doing the petty stuff before complaining about not being able to do the important stuff. It's that simple
Petty in your eyes, but you don't define what the police should and shouldn't be doing. The fringe extreme examples add up to an infinitesimally small amount of time within the total policing time spent, so it's a practically irrelevant point. Plus what you define as a waste probably isn't (other than extremes like the Hebdo example).La Liga said:
You don't need to be overwhelmed 24/7, or totally incapable of attending lower-level incidents all the time to have overall resourcing issues and risks. There are times when it's not as busy, and periods of the year when it isn't as busy. The natural ebb and flow of demand and the variables means there will be periods when it's exceptionally quiet, just as there are when it's exceptionally busy.
It's a liner environment i.e. when it's quiet and you are able to deal with lower-level things, it makes no difference to when (in the future) it's crazily busy and you can't. So when someone foolish comes out with the, "why are you stopping me, are all the murders and rapists caught?", they demonstrate a lack of understanding about how things work.
By that logic, the NHS aren't stretched because they're still sending out Ambulances to minor injuries when people are waiting for heart surgery.
It's a liner environment i.e. when it's quiet and you are able to deal with lower-level things, it makes no difference to when (in the future) it's crazily busy and you can't. So when someone foolish comes out with the, "why are you stopping me, are all the murders and rapists caught?", they demonstrate a lack of understanding about how things work.
By that logic, the NHS aren't stretched because they're still sending out Ambulances to minor injuries when people are waiting for heart surgery.
La Liga said:
They're the only conditions, are they? Either "so rushed off your feet", or "get plenty of quiet periods"? It can't be anything other than plenty? How about a few? Or fewer, these days? How about rushed off one's feet 80% of the time?
I've already explained that demand is linear and that quiet periods don't detract from busy ones. If your capability to manage atypically busy periods is diminished because there are fewer officers, it means nothing the previous day was a quiet period, say one where there's an animal rights protest...
The biggest threat I can see is that a lot of forces are moving to a more superficial structure i.e. responding to people calling the police and processing prisoners. You talk of the police having time to do lower-level things being a conclusion they aren't going to struggle with demand. The problem here is you're looking at it from a one-dimensional perceptive. There are many areas where it's 'give with one take from another' in lots of roles which aren't so overtly obvious.
I'd also question what you define as being a waste of time. Shoplifter, really?
You're also confusing the balance of power when it comes to what the police do. If a crime is alleged it requires a degree of attention. Just because something turns out to be nothing, doesn't mean it couldn't have been something, or didn't appear as something when report. Hindsight bias is easy in occupations of risk. Often minor things uncover more serious things. For example, a female reporting her ex is sending her messages on Facebook that are worrying her. It may be relatively minor, but it may be her wanting you to visit and uncover a vast range of historic abuse. It could be her first contact with the police, and she needs to be met with a more open and inquisitive mind than someone who makes assumptions about a it just being 'a Facebook' incident, as you seem to view it as.
You then went on to say "the police have alienated their support over many years", I then showed all data indications (including trust measured over 30 years) show this not to be the case. I mention this just to preempt having to do it again. I've already explained that demand is linear and that quiet periods don't detract from busy ones. If your capability to manage atypically busy periods is diminished because there are fewer officers, it means nothing the previous day was a quiet period, say one where there's an animal rights protest...
The biggest threat I can see is that a lot of forces are moving to a more superficial structure i.e. responding to people calling the police and processing prisoners. You talk of the police having time to do lower-level things being a conclusion they aren't going to struggle with demand. The problem here is you're looking at it from a one-dimensional perceptive. There are many areas where it's 'give with one take from another' in lots of roles which aren't so overtly obvious.
I'd also question what you define as being a waste of time. Shoplifter, really?
You're also confusing the balance of power when it comes to what the police do. If a crime is alleged it requires a degree of attention. Just because something turns out to be nothing, doesn't mean it couldn't have been something, or didn't appear as something when report. Hindsight bias is easy in occupations of risk. Often minor things uncover more serious things. For example, a female reporting her ex is sending her messages on Facebook that are worrying her. It may be relatively minor, but it may be her wanting you to visit and uncover a vast range of historic abuse. It could be her first contact with the police, and she needs to be met with a more open and inquisitive mind than someone who makes assumptions about a it just being 'a Facebook' incident, as you seem to view it as.
La Liga said:
You then went on to say "the police have alienated their support over many years", I then showed all data indications (including trust measured over 30 years) show this not to be the case. I mention this just to preempt having to do it again.
I'm pleased that everyone supports you as this means that your perceived problems will disappear on a groundswell of public opinion. No worries.Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
You then went on to say "the police have alienated their support over many years", I then showed all data indications (including trust measured over 30 years) show this not to be the case. I mention this just to preempt having to do it again.
I'm pleased that everyone supports you as this means that your perceived problems will disappear on a groundswell of public opinion. No worries.I'm disappointed because it really isn't like you to manipulate a post to misrepresent another poster's position to try and score a cheap point.
Cat
williamp said:
Derek Smith said:
It is no coincidence that the federation funded a civil case against a foul-mouthed MP just before funding was cut.
Yes, how did that go when the Police decided to get political, anti- government and lied? Repeatedly?. Over one bad word which is used every day. Even by Police officers. Did the British population fully support you then? Derek Smith said:
The nasty home secretary.
There is a lot which is wrong with our police force and needs to be changed. Its brave of someone to take you on. You say that there is a lot that is wrong with policing in this country (phraseology changed, but I think that's what you meant to say) and needs to be changed. Well welcome to the world of police officer opinion. There is an awful lot that is wrong, and many of the serving officers who contribute to this forum have said so time and again. It seems strange that you appear to have missed all the comments. However, this government is not out to change what is wrong with the police but to make it cheaper. That's all. The problems have not been addressed and m it has made many of them considerably worse.
And as for May being brave by 'taking on' the service . . . what is so brave about being a bully? There is nothing the police can do. They have to sit there and take the cuts in pay, the reduction in conditions of service, the imposed limits on rights available to everyone else, and an increase in demand. Yeah, very brave, just like a big, fat school kid is brave when they beat up younger and weaker children.
Take 'you' on: that makes it look as if the only reason she is taking this stance is for some moral stance when everyone knows that she is doing it to suck up to the right of the party to bolster her chance for the top job when Cameron goes in three or so years.
The police, at least the rank and file, were after changes back in the 90s. The call was ignored. There were changes demanded during the 2000s but the appeal was ignored. My force tried to block the imposition of PFI, but the demands were ignored, and the cost of that is being paid now.
Theresa May said she has increased the front line by 91%. That is a lie and a quite staggering one at that.
She said that she expects Police cars to be mobile Police stations. The cars I use have 200000+ miles. They break down a lot. The ANPR doesn't work because it's old and there's no money to replace it. The video system is windows based. It crashes all the time because it's seven years old. There's no money to replace it. There will be no money to replace it in the future. I don't imagine she uses a six year old PC when she's sat in her office. My force minimum of £40 million in cuts in the next few years, on top of the 30% they've already lost. It's not sustainable. She plans to remove another 40000 Officers with a target figure nationally of 80000. She still claims that will have no affect whatsoever. It's either utter arrogance or complete ignorance.
Like a true Politician, everything she comes out with is soundbite nonsense, with absolutely no grip on reality. She's not 'taking on' the Police. She's 'taking on' the public, because they will be the ones to suffer.
She said that she expects Police cars to be mobile Police stations. The cars I use have 200000+ miles. They break down a lot. The ANPR doesn't work because it's old and there's no money to replace it. The video system is windows based. It crashes all the time because it's seven years old. There's no money to replace it. There will be no money to replace it in the future. I don't imagine she uses a six year old PC when she's sat in her office. My force minimum of £40 million in cuts in the next few years, on top of the 30% they've already lost. It's not sustainable. She plans to remove another 40000 Officers with a target figure nationally of 80000. She still claims that will have no affect whatsoever. It's either utter arrogance or complete ignorance.
Like a true Politician, everything she comes out with is soundbite nonsense, with absolutely no grip on reality. She's not 'taking on' the Police. She's 'taking on' the public, because they will be the ones to suffer.
I don't for one minute accept that cuts to the Police Budget caused this incident which in the end had a £20000 payout from the Police to the victim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32827731
there is obviously large amounts of money being paid for Police equipment. dorset Police have just announced a large sum to install ANPR system, they even have an ANPR Manager.
http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=8469
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32827731
there is obviously large amounts of money being paid for Police equipment. dorset Police have just announced a large sum to install ANPR system, they even have an ANPR Manager.
http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=8469
Edited by rewc on Friday 22 May 09:40
rewc said:
I don't for one minute accept that cuts to the Police Budget caused this incident which in the end had a £20000 payout from the Police to the victim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32827731
There is more to that story than meets the eye (I live in winchester). That is all I'm saying on the matter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32827731
Bigends said:
Police arent the army - no comparison - have this discussion with my brother who did 19yrs in tanks - if he wanted my pay and conditions he should have joined the Police and not the army.
So it could be worse then?Anyhow, that bit about "should've joined the Police"......cuts both ways dunnit?
If you don't like it, you shouldn't have joined the Police.
Having spent 24 years in the military and now married to a front line NHS nurse, believe me, you lot don't do too badly at all.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 May 12:20
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff