Police detain 11 year of girl with a neurological disability
Discussion
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
The model deals with the essentials. Responding to emergencies and dealing with people who have been arrested are the two most important aspects of policing. These are what a lot of forces have had to strip down to.
Financial penalties are all good and well, but if the issues stem from too few staff then they add little to no benefit. If the root cause of a MH delay is that there are no beds, then there are no beds. Charging the NHS doesn't change that.
Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?Financial penalties are all good and well, but if the issues stem from too few staff then they add little to no benefit. If the root cause of a MH delay is that there are no beds, then there are no beds. Charging the NHS doesn't change that.
The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.
In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.
I don't think there was much 'prisoner process' in the 18th century. There weren't too many call centres or mobile phones creating mass-demand, necessitating police officers be in vehicles as opposed to on foot.
Long-term crime projections? No idea, as it'd be a waste of time given how many variables there are to crime and disorder, many of which are external.
If Elroy's duties when he steps in for MH staff involve being there for a vulnerable person and nothing more, why can this not be dealt with by MH staff on a call-out rota?
La Liga said:
I personally believe it's about the most efficient model (I have no vested interest in it) and that moving the pieces around isn't going to change much.
There's a threshold in which demand will outweigh supply when you have a finite number of resources, no matter which structures are undertaken. It's a good attitude to have, to look at alternative solutions, but there comes a point where it's important to realise that there's no escaping a demand / supply mismatch, and that the 'least worst' option is preferable in the circumstances. You could have a call out rota for scenarios where there'd be pure 'remaining with a vulnerable person', but that adds to the net cost of the public services. The police officer is a 'sunk cost' i.e. already paid for, regardless of what he and she is doing. We've explored why simply transferring the policing funds to the NHS won't work for policing, so I don't consider that a viable option.
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
mph1977 said:
singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?
The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.
In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.
I estimate that ensuring an MH professional is available 24/7 would at least match the cost of Elroy if not exceed it. 9-5 is a different thing altogether.The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.
In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.
AfC pay scales FY 2016-17
https://www.rcn.org.uk/employment-and-pay/nhs-pay-...
Police pays scales 2015 -2016 ( police pay settlement is mid FY iirc)
http://www.tvpfed.org/pay-scales
current crisis team provision is a tiny fraction of day time cover same with social work Emergency duty team - it;s the old fashioned model of on call working rather than a core 24/7 service as the police / ambulance ./ acute general hospital A+E and admission units work
+Employer's pension contribution
+Fixed direct overheads
+Variable direct overheads
+Fixed indirect overheads
+Variable indirect overheads
I could go on...
Please tell me that you have no responsibility for managing taxpayer's money.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Company line? Probably a bit close to home for you and best left well alone on a public forum.
Why are you speculating? I've written I support it and feel it should remain. I'm not suggesting the original case was anything like this, but I'll just leave this article about children here...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thugs-young-1...
Also reported elsewhere than the Mirror.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thugs-young-1...
Also reported elsewhere than the Mirror.
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Company line? Probably a bit close to home for you and best left well alone on a public forum.
Why are you speculating? I've written I support it and feel it should remain. Re-reading and taking into account the post I have quoted above, I assume by 'those that impose', you're talking about the government. If so, the model doesn't have to be flawed, the selection of the model itself speaks volumes. You've described it yourself in unfavourable terms.
I was talking about supporting it in the circumstances. The circumstance police managers need to make decisions regarding structures.
Economically, I support turning the deficit into a surplus. That requires savings where possible, and extra revenue generation where possible. I think the former is focused upon much more than the latter as it's easier. What I don't like is the 'cake and eat it' approach to reducing policing budgets. If you want to reduce officers then reduce their demand. Accept more risk and allow the police to cut of some of the time they waste. That one in 10,000 'Facebook threats' incident may turn into something more serious, but does 1 incident justify the time spent on the other 9999? Rather than ask difficult questions and make tough decisions, the government would rather just hope fewer people can manage just the same as before with the same demand.
I don't like the blatant dishonesty of 'the front line will be protected'. Politics at its worst. The public should have accurate information as to the consequences of X, Y and Z in order to make their democratic choices.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Company line? Probably a bit close to home for you and best left well alone on a public forum.
Why are you speculating? I've written I support it and feel it should remain. Re-reading and taking into account the post I have quoted above, I assume by 'those that impose', you're talking about the government. If so, the model doesn't have to be flawed, the selection of the model itself speaks volumes. You've described it yourself in unfavourable terms.
I was talking about supporting it in the circumstances. The circumstance police managers need to make decisions regarding structures.
Economically, I support turning the deficit into a surplus. That requires savings where possible, and extra revenue generation where possible. I think the former is focused upon much more than the latter as it's easier. What I don't like is the 'cake and eat it' approach to reducing policing budgets. If you want to reduce officers then reduce their demand. Accept more risk and allow the police to cut of some of the time they waste. That one in 10,000 'Facebook threats' incident may turn into something more serious, but does 1 incident justify the time spent on the other 9999? Rather than ask difficult questions and make tough decisions, the government would rather just hope fewer people can manage just the same as before with the same demand.
I don't like the blatant dishonesty of 'the front line will be protected'. Politics at its worst. The public should have accurate information as to the consequences of X, Y and Z in order to make their democratic choices.
MH issues certainly appear to be consuming an inordinate amount of police resource: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/me...
V8 Fettler said:
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
mph1977 said:
singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?
The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.
In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.
I estimate that ensuring an MH professional is available 24/7 would at least match the cost of Elroy if not exceed it. 9-5 is a different thing altogether.The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.
In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.
AfC pay scales FY 2016-17
https://www.rcn.org.uk/employment-and-pay/nhs-pay-...
Police pays scales 2015 -2016 ( police pay settlement is mid FY iirc)
http://www.tvpfed.org/pay-scales
current crisis team provision is a tiny fraction of day time cover same with social work Emergency duty team - it;s the old fashioned model of on call working rather than a core 24/7 service as the police / ambulance ./ acute general hospital A+E and admission units work
+Employer's pension contribution
+Fixed direct overheads
+Variable direct overheads
+Fixed indirect overheads
+Variable indirect overheads
I could go on...
Please tell me that you have no responsibility for managing taxpayer's money.
i avoided the topic of pensions here primarily because it would bring down the chicken little types, but needless to say police pensions are some of the more expensive public sector pensions due to their much shorter accrual / lower normal pensionable age
the overheads argument is a side show to this - a car is a car ... and if it's marked does it matter whether it;s green and yellow or blue and yellow livery - the costs for livery, warning devices and comms are the same like for like whether it;s a 'police' vehicle of a 'health' vehicle.
ditto for office costs, IT , comms equipment
you are attempting to divert a question aobut the cost of a police officer vs the cost of a HCP in responding to a situation which prima facie is a mental health one ...
V8 Fettler said:
I doubt if the current gubmint (or any in recent times) is capable of selecting a detailed model for long-term policing, I even doubt if they have much interest in long-term policing. What is alarming is your apparent acceptance of the situation and declared lack of interest in alternatives, but perhaps understandable on a public forum.
MH issues certainly appear to be consuming an inordinate amount of police resource: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/me...
Why's it alarming? Is it not possible the model my force uses is the best in the circumstances? MH issues certainly appear to be consuming an inordinate amount of police resource: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/me...
Derek Smith said:
Red Devil said:
Derek Smith said:
What I was referring to was the lack of any police force in this country until 1829.
I beg to differ. Contrary to popular belief the Met was not the country's first professional police force.That honour fell to the Scots 29 years earlier: the Glasgow Police Act 1800.
If one allows arguments against the CoL being first then so too must we allow them against the GCP.
But I'm not one to suggest that the Met police bullied the CoL into submission. No, I'd never say that.
My case rests on the above mentioned statute. Can you quote a source to support your contention?
Furthermore, in 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against a Metropolitan Police advert.
The Met gave an undertaking not to repeat the claim - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FtCWAwAAQBAJ&a...
Back O/T, I can't see much real improvement happening until the current period of 'austerity' comes to a close.
Another thing which doesn't help is there are far too many competing empire builders and vested interests in high places.
Yes Minister was a comedy but with an uncomfortably accurate take on the way the UK establishment operates.
I detect little cultural change in the subsequent 30 years.
Draughts and chess are different games played on the same board. The question is can any reform succeed until we change the latter?
Red Devil said:
Derek Smith said:
Red Devil said:
Derek Smith said:
What I was referring to was the lack of any police force in this country until 1829.
I beg to differ. Contrary to popular belief the Met was not the country's first professional police force.That honour fell to the Scots 29 years earlier: the Glasgow Police Act 1800.
If one allows arguments against the CoL being first then so too must we allow them against the GCP.
But I'm not one to suggest that the Met police bullied the CoL into submission. No, I'd never say that.
My case rests on the above mentioned statute. Can you quote a source to support your contention?
Furthermore, in 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against a Metropolitan Police advert.
The Met gave an undertaking not to repeat the claim - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FtCWAwAAQBAJ&a...
As you say, the Mets accepted the ruling as any attempt to challenge it would have cost money and the then Com decided it was not worth all the fuss. But most historians without Scottish heritage would accept that the first police force was the Mets. On top of that, and pertinent to the argument, is that the system of policing in Scotland has always differed from that of England/Wales.
The ASA were wrong in their decision. The Mets thought it not worth the bother.
I on the other hand prefer things to be right.
The Glasgow 'force' was indeed tiny compared to that established by Peel's Metropolitan Police Act. However they were in addition to the existing watchmen. The latter, with the responsibilities you mentioned, manned fixed points across the city whereas the fledgling force patrolled for the particular purpose of preventing crime.
I don't doubt the then Commissioner took a pragmatic decision not to contest the point with the ASA. Our opinions differ about whether it was right to take the stance it did though. Likewise with historians. They and those in the field of science are the most dogmatic and argumentative bunch of people on the planet. History = his story. Usually written by the winners of any conflict.
Do I detect an English bias here? Some folk get quite het up about any challenge whereby London is not perceived as being the centre of the UK universe in every respect.
I don't doubt the then Commissioner took a pragmatic decision not to contest the point with the ASA. Our opinions differ about whether it was right to take the stance it did though. Likewise with historians. They and those in the field of science are the most dogmatic and argumentative bunch of people on the planet. History = his story. Usually written by the winners of any conflict.
Do I detect an English bias here? Some folk get quite het up about any challenge whereby London is not perceived as being the centre of the UK universe in every respect.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
I doubt if the current gubmint (or any in recent times) is capable of selecting a detailed model for long-term policing, I even doubt if they have much interest in long-term policing. What is alarming is your apparent acceptance of the situation and declared lack of interest in alternatives, but perhaps understandable on a public forum.
MH issues certainly appear to be consuming an inordinate amount of police resource: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/me...
Why's it alarming? Is it not possible the model my force uses is the best in the circumstances? MH issues certainly appear to be consuming an inordinate amount of police resource: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/me...
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
mph1977 said:
singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
Your model takes policing back to the 18th Century. What are the long-term projections for crime figures with that particular model?
The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.
In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.
I estimate that ensuring an MH professional is available 24/7 would at least match the cost of Elroy if not exceed it. 9-5 is a different thing altogether.The correct allocation of costs is not a penalty, it's the correct allocation of costs. Ensure that an element of the remuneration of senior NHS managers is inversely proportional to the cost of employing Elroy to stand in for MH staff and watch the availability of MH staff increase.
In the almost complete absence of figures, I estimate that the cost of placing Elroy in the field is twice that of a MH professional. Add the cost of the loss of the opportunity to solve / prevent crime and the differential would be even greater.
AfC pay scales FY 2016-17
https://www.rcn.org.uk/employment-and-pay/nhs-pay-...
Police pays scales 2015 -2016 ( police pay settlement is mid FY iirc)
http://www.tvpfed.org/pay-scales
current crisis team provision is a tiny fraction of day time cover same with social work Emergency duty team - it;s the old fashioned model of on call working rather than a core 24/7 service as the police / ambulance ./ acute general hospital A+E and admission units work
+Employer's pension contribution
+Fixed direct overheads
+Variable direct overheads
+Fixed indirect overheads
+Variable indirect overheads
I could go on...
Please tell me that you have no responsibility for managing taxpayer's money.
i avoided the topic of pensions here primarily because it would bring down the chicken little types, but needless to say police pensions are some of the more expensive public sector pensions due to their much shorter accrual / lower normal pensionable age
the overheads argument is a side show to this - a car is a car ... and if it's marked does it matter whether it;s green and yellow or blue and yellow livery - the costs for livery, warning devices and comms are the same like for like whether it;s a 'police' vehicle of a 'health' vehicle.
ditto for office costs, IT , comms equipment
you are attempting to divert a question aobut the cost of a police officer vs the cost of a HCP in responding to a situation which prima facie is a mental health one ...
V8 Fettler said:
Are you not capable of rational thought? I'm all for broadbrush, but to claim that the overheads for Elroy are the same as the overheads for an unknown MH professional is stretching things a bit. Different organisations operating in different sectors = different overheads.
Probably different, but not necessarily different.singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
Are you not capable of rational thought? I'm all for broadbrush, but to claim that the overheads for Elroy are the same as the overheads for an unknown MH professional is stretching things a bit. Different organisations operating in different sectors = different overheads.
Probably different, but not necessarily different.The overheads will probably be larger for MH given the supporting infrastructure required i.e. beds / wards to place people.
It's a wholly flawed argument in any event since I've explained why policing demand doesn't allow simplistic transferring of funds.
Do you keep things deliberately ambiguous to constantly change angles? Why don't you be clear about the specific point you're making?
Where did I ever 'readily accept substantial issues for our budget'? I didn't.
The issues are fundamentally caused by a lack of capacity. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul doesn't magically fix this. It's not that simplistic.
'Command bunker' - here come the default bingo words. When's 'flailing' appearing?
It's a wholly flawed argument in any event since I've explained why policing demand doesn't allow simplistic transferring of funds.
V8 Fettler said:
You're in that command bunker again. You seem to readily accept that failures within another organisation can create substantial issues for your budget; is no-one within the police looking at clawing back at least some of the costs involved with the police stepping in for MH professionals?
So now you're not talking about the '18th century' policing 'model', you're talking about taking funds from a different organisation. Do you keep things deliberately ambiguous to constantly change angles? Why don't you be clear about the specific point you're making?
Where did I ever 'readily accept substantial issues for our budget'? I didn't.
The issues are fundamentally caused by a lack of capacity. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul doesn't magically fix this. It's not that simplistic.
'Command bunker' - here come the default bingo words. When's 'flailing' appearing?
La Liga said:
The overheads will probably be larger for MH given the supporting infrastructure required i.e. beds / wards to place people.
It's a wholly flawed argument in any event since I've explained why policing demand doesn't allow simplistic transferring of funds.
Do you keep things deliberately ambiguous to constantly change angles? Why don't you be clear about the specific point you're making?
Where did I ever 'readily accept substantial issues for our budget'? I didn't.
The issues are fundamentally caused by a lack of capacity. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul doesn't magically fix this. It's not that simplistic.
'Command bunker' - here come the default bingo words. When's 'flailing' appearing?
For the purposes of the cost comparison, the cost element for a bed/ward within the calculations for the charge-out rate for an MH professional should not be included unless Elroy also supplies a bed/ward.It's a wholly flawed argument in any event since I've explained why policing demand doesn't allow simplistic transferring of funds.
V8 Fettler said:
You're in that command bunker again. You seem to readily accept that failures within another organisation can create substantial issues for your budget; is no-one within the police looking at clawing back at least some of the costs involved with the police stepping in for MH professionals?
So now you're not talking about the '18th century' policing 'model', you're talking about taking funds from a different organisation. Do you keep things deliberately ambiguous to constantly change angles? Why don't you be clear about the specific point you're making?
Where did I ever 'readily accept substantial issues for our budget'? I didn't.
The issues are fundamentally caused by a lack of capacity. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul doesn't magically fix this. It's not that simplistic.
'Command bunker' - here come the default bingo words. When's 'flailing' appearing?
There is already a mechanism in place to enable the police to charge organisations for their services, this mechanism should be used to charge the NHS for Elroy's services, ensuring that the charge-out rate fully reflects police costs.
Have you not already made the link between reduction in funding and the return to pre-Peel policing?
If you don't accept the issues arising from the cuts in police budgets then what are you doing about it?
The use of Elroy in place of MH staff is an inefficient use of resources. If there's no cost implication for the NHS when Elroy steps in for MH staff then there is little incentive for NHS managers to resolve this.
singlecoil said:
V8 Fettler said:
Are you not capable of rational thought? I'm all for broadbrush, but to claim that the overheads for Elroy are the same as the overheads for an unknown MH professional is stretching things a bit. Different organisations operating in different sectors = different overheads.
Probably different, but not necessarily different.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff