Police and Crime Commissioner absolute farce.
Discussion
La Liga said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Red 4 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
In my opinion, the needs of society in relation to policing are;
A police service that recognises that it polices by consent and makes itself directly accountable to society through independent scrutiny and governance
A police service that is affordable whilst delivering its mandate
A police service that serves the law abiding many by protecting then from the law breaking few
A police service that adheres to a code of professional standards and is subject independent sanction, up to criminal prosecution, when it breaches them
A police service that knows - and sticks to - its place in the criminal justice system
Sadly, we've drifted some way away from that.
1. It's called the IPCC.A police service that recognises that it polices by consent and makes itself directly accountable to society through independent scrutiny and governance
A police service that is affordable whilst delivering its mandate
A police service that serves the law abiding many by protecting then from the law breaking few
A police service that adheres to a code of professional standards and is subject independent sanction, up to criminal prosecution, when it breaches them
A police service that knows - and sticks to - its place in the criminal justice system
Sadly, we've drifted some way away from that.
2. Affordable ? Budgets are set they are not infinite. As for delivering "its mandate" that really depends on what "its mandate" is. Expect more politics and less policing.
3. Police officers (not police "managers") tend to enjoy catching criminals.
4. PSD has been around for a while. It used to be called Complaints and Discipline. The police service is very disciplined, contrary to what you may or may not believe. Much more so than most professions.
5. Police investigate. CPS prosecute. The courts convict or acquit. Nothing has changed.
I don't think you have quite grasped what the police actually do or the service provided.
I've told you before, the that the barriers to any meaningful police reform are statutory ones. Tinkering with the sides doesn't allow meaningful change.
This is speculation and a little cynical, but it's not unreasonable (IMO), and ties into what I said earlier. The Government know that there doesn't need to be any large-scale operational change to the police. That's why they don't address the things that prevent any serious change. They still need to be seen to be dong something, of course. When have you heard any Government say, "yes the police are fine and need to keep evolving with the times as they always have"?
If you listen to the Home Secretary in 2010 when she said the mission of the police was to cut crime and nothing less, then that's being achieved. The fundamental aim of my business is to generate an income and grow at a nice steady rate. That's being achieved, so why would I make any major changes to it?
You are agreeing with exactly my point - when the guys on here bang on about 'change is the only constant' etc, etc. what they really mean is that there is constant administrative re-organisation. What is required is a thorough strategic review of the police service to set a model that is right for the 21st century. I cant recall the police service ever having had such a review in my lifetime and I'm 42.
ClaphamGT3 said:
What is required is a thorough strategic review of the police service to set a model that is right for the 21st century.
Can you give me an example of something you'd change? I don't understand what actually you want to happen.
Please give some sort of specific, don't just say a 'full review' or a 'shake-up'.
I don't get what you actually want.
ClaphamGT3 said:
My point is that, whilst those mechanisms are in place, how many of them are anywhere near functioning?
You are agreeing with exactly my point - when the guys on here bang on about 'change is the only constant' etc, etc. what they really mean is that there is constant administrative re-organisation. What is required is a thorough strategic review of the police service to set a model that is right for the 21st century. I cant recall the police service ever having had such a review in my lifetime and I'm 42.
They are all functioning. You are agreeing with exactly my point - when the guys on here bang on about 'change is the only constant' etc, etc. what they really mean is that there is constant administrative re-organisation. What is required is a thorough strategic review of the police service to set a model that is right for the 21st century. I cant recall the police service ever having had such a review in my lifetime and I'm 42.
I am not agreeing with your point as those people are right. The police service is about evolution, not revolution (Alan Partridge?). Change is constant. It's in the form of new legislation, new offences, social media, policy, procedure, results of serious case reviews, technology, crime-trends, neighbourhood policing, a change in measuring performance (PPATH to APACS to whatever it is now), The Policing Pledge (which was then scrapped) and other many, many other things that results in officers seeing different, or completely different things over relatively short periods of time. This stuff is relatively superficial but it none-the-less often results in front-line officers doing quite different things one year from the next. Cops just tend to go with the flow and get on with it.
PACE in the mid 80s and the National Intelligence Model in the early 00s resulted in quite large strategic shifts and were as close to root and branch 'reviews' as you're ever going to get. The latter basically makes PCCs irrelevant on any serious level.
The model you're referring to is fundamentally fit for purpose, that's because the fundamental demands on the service haven't changed. Responding to emergencies and arresting criminals has and always will be at the core of police work. The public ultimately define what the police look like by what they demand from them and call them for. That's what the model has built and evolved itself around.
Why does there need to be a 'thorough strategic review'? What's so wrong that requires things to be done so differently? Each police have formal processes to look at organisational strategy (PESTEL marco-type stuff) to keep nimble and prepare for the future.
This Government and previous ones know that the model is, at its core, fit for purpose. That's why they'll only tweak and give lip-service to 'reform' to make it look like they are 'doing something'. They know they can't make any major changes without breaking things and risking law and order.
The only reason Windsor has got so much attention is form the pay and conditions angle (fortunately it doesn't really affect me so I have no emotion invested in the review). The organisational / operational content isn't anywhere near as radical and is merely tweaking. Again, why? Because there's no need.
But the model isn't fit for purpose.
Let's leave aside all the subjective issues around public satisfaction/alienation of the police service from society/role of the police in society which are emotive and highly subjective. Let's focus just on a couple of areas that are entirely rational.
The current model for policing isn't affordable. I don't know if you're a policeman or not but just read through this thread; it is full of serving frontline officers providing anecdotal evidence that budget pressures are constraining policing to an unsustainable level. Secondly that same post trawl will see those same officers venting their frustrations at non core activity and administrivia blocking what resources they do have from policing effectively. Does that sound like a fit for purpose organisation to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's appear insignificant by comparison
Let's leave aside all the subjective issues around public satisfaction/alienation of the police service from society/role of the police in society which are emotive and highly subjective. Let's focus just on a couple of areas that are entirely rational.
The current model for policing isn't affordable. I don't know if you're a policeman or not but just read through this thread; it is full of serving frontline officers providing anecdotal evidence that budget pressures are constraining policing to an unsustainable level. Secondly that same post trawl will see those same officers venting their frustrations at non core activity and administrivia blocking what resources they do have from policing effectively. Does that sound like a fit for purpose organisation to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's appear insignificant by comparison
But the model isn't fit for purpose.
Let's leave aside all the subjective issues around public satisfaction/alienation of the police service from society/role of the police in society which are emotive and highly subjective. Let's focus just on a couple of areas that are entirely rational.
The current model for policing isn't affordable. I don't know if you're a policeman or not but just read through this thread; it is full of serving frontline officers providing anecdotal evidence that budget pressures are constraining policing to an unsustainable level. Secondly that same post trawl will see those same officers venting their frustrations at non core activity and administrivia blocking what resources they do have from policing effectively. Does that sound like a fit for purpose organisation to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's etc, appear insignificant by comparison
Let's leave aside all the subjective issues around public satisfaction/alienation of the police service from society/role of the police in society which are emotive and highly subjective. Let's focus just on a couple of areas that are entirely rational.
The current model for policing isn't affordable. I don't know if you're a policeman or not but just read through this thread; it is full of serving frontline officers providing anecdotal evidence that budget pressures are constraining policing to an unsustainable level. Secondly that same post trawl will see those same officers venting their frustrations at non core activity and administrivia blocking what resources they do have from policing effectively. Does that sound like a fit for purpose organisation to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's etc, appear insignificant by comparison
clived said:
Red Devil said:
If that doesn't work for you, try http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/Correction to my link - http://www.policeelections.com/forces/norfolk/
Alternatively - http://www.policecrimecommissioner.co.uk/Norfolk
On both, you can find the candidates in your local area.
Derek Smith said:
Red 4 said:
Who wants to stay in the nick ? Are we including Sergeants, Inspectors, Chief Inspectors, Superintendents, Chief Superintendents, etc. in this question ?
There are also a fair number of Pc's who I'm sure would rather stay behind a desk and not venture out into the unknown.
I'm with you on the narrowing of the rank structure. In fact I think the service provided to the public would be improved if there was a cull of certain ranks. It'll never happen though. Too many empires have already been built.
From my experience, if you ask any PC or sergeant what irks them about the job they will say the paperwork and therefore being stuck in. I'm not aware of any person joining the service because they wanted to sit behind a desk. Their first few weeks will reinforce this. The main problem with being an inspector is that it is often impossible to leave the nick. There are also a fair number of Pc's who I'm sure would rather stay behind a desk and not venture out into the unknown.
I'm with you on the narrowing of the rank structure. In fact I think the service provided to the public would be improved if there was a cull of certain ranks. It'll never happen though. Too many empires have already been built.
I feel certain that I was not unique in being irritated by having to spend hours in the cell block on reviews, cautioning offenders who weren't listening, writing apparisals, going to power briefings, meetings with senior officers who had a 'good idea'.
I don't know where this myth started that it was the intent of every officer to stay in the nick but my suspicions are that it came from politicians who were trying to justify something unjustifiable.
When I was on my first shift in the 70s it was noted by a sergeant that a PC was seen in the nick more often that normal. He found out he had what was called then a breakdown.
You suggest 'unknown'? This, I think, is the joy of the job.
Would you consider being in control of the operation room trying to avoid the 'unknown'?
Don't forget that the posting which all but precludes going out on the street into the unkown is detective. Are you suggesting that they hide? Mosty officer want to go for the specialities as they give a chance of getting out more and doing less paperwork.
What ranks would you suggest getting rid of? Sheehey (nee Cameron) suggested getting rid of chief inspector but then it was pointed out that the role would still be needed and that a differentiation between inspector made obvious. Chief super might seem easy enough but then who do you put in charge of a number of divisions? ACC? But then . . . and so on.
I might agree to there being less officers in ranks above sergeant but then the jobs would still have to be performed. One force got rid of the inspector's job in public relations. It was totally civilianised. The bloke now running it is paid as much as a senior chief inspector. He even has his own parking space, something not awarded to the inspector. We got civilians to run the admin at nicks. They are now viewed and paid as supers.
One odd fact: my force civilianised some 'support' roles, with a great deal of success. With the swingeing cuts, these jobs have had to go to save money and police officers are now performing them. Probationers were used whilst there were still some around but now substantive PCs are put in the roles. The overtime bill has gone down. However, none want to stay in these tedious roles and they want to go out into the 'unknown'.
Most officers had to be posted to Gatwick because the role, that of door-keeping in the main, was seen as 'known'. The force used improper methods to move officers to the central corridor to ensure that they could post officers there without incurring extra costs. But as soon as they arrived most started to tunnel their way out. They wanted to patrol.
"SIR – As a junior criminal barrister in 1981, I once asked a repeat burglar why he had committed his latest crime. The answer that I received was: “I didn’t think I’d get caught."
Often, the same question to other criminals produced the same answer. Of course the punishment must “fit the crime”, but it is axiomatic that punishment can only bite after arrest and prosecution.
I wonder how many of our politicians, in their endless search for new punitive initiatives, have realised that putting more police on the beat increases the chances of detection which, oddly enough, is what our criminals fear the most."
Streaky
streaky said:
A letter from a QC in the DT this morning - about sentencing - makes a relevant point:
"SIR – As a junior criminal barrister in 1981, I once asked a repeat burglar why he had committed his latest crime. The answer that I received was: “I didn’t think I’d get caught."
Often, the same question to other criminals produced the same answer. Of course the punishment must “fit the crime”, but it is axiomatic that punishment can only bite after arrest and prosecution.
I wonder how many of our politicians, in their endless search for new punitive initiatives, have realised that putting more police on the beat increases the chances of detection which, oddly enough, is what our criminals fear the most."
Streaky
This reflects research carried out around that time - not that I'm suggesting the barrister has pinched it without attirubtion - the conclusion being that the best deterent was the likelihood of getting caught. There was no doubt about it, the evidence was overwhelming. Most offenders did not expect to get caught. Increase the possibility of catching offenders decreases that specific crime."SIR – As a junior criminal barrister in 1981, I once asked a repeat burglar why he had committed his latest crime. The answer that I received was: “I didn’t think I’d get caught."
Often, the same question to other criminals produced the same answer. Of course the punishment must “fit the crime”, but it is axiomatic that punishment can only bite after arrest and prosecution.
I wonder how many of our politicians, in their endless search for new punitive initiatives, have realised that putting more police on the beat increases the chances of detection which, oddly enough, is what our criminals fear the most."
Streaky
Such research did not sit well with governments who wanted to pull expensive patrolling officers off the streets and they concentrated on other research, most notably that a patrolling officer was unlikely to come across a crime. The answer to this is that this shows how effective a patrolling officer is, but the one chosen was that the PC on the beat was a waste of space.
I loved patrolling. Getting to know your locals is what it is all about. When I was running my first shift in Brighton I had a little operation: two PCs would get to know local vagrants and try and get them off the street to lower anti-social behaviour. It was a total success. But on top of that we got so much intelligence. There was a body (found in a cemetary) with no witnesses and little in the way of useful evidence. The CID were stymied. My lads asked around and within 12 hours of the body being found had a name, a location (Glasgow), and a likely address. The bloke was arrested the following day, less than 12 hours after he got off the train.
The operation was cancelled by my bosses about a week later as too expensive in staffing.
I was in the nick once, writing up a report, when I got a phone call from a little newsagents where I used to have a cup of tea a couple of times a week. Nice bloke, CRO from way back. He'd seen someone 'up to no good.' I ran down there (I was in civvies) just in time to see him coming out of premisis. He ran away but I caught him just as he was disposing of a couple of purses and some other stuff.
I got a mention in the 'pink 'un', the weekly CID 'good work'. I didn't think I deserved it but then I'd been cultivating this bloke, and others, for some time and so I think the result was good.
ClaphamGT3 said:
But the model isn't fit for purpose.
Let's leave aside all the subjective issues around public satisfaction/alienation of the police service from society/role of the police in society which are emotive and highly subjective. Let's focus just on a couple of areas that are entirely rational.
The current model for policing isn't affordable. I don't know if you're a policeman or not but just read through this thread; it is full of serving frontline officers providing anecdotal evidence that budget pressures are constraining policing to an unsustainable level. Secondly that same post trawl will see those same officers venting their frustrations at non core activity and administrivia blocking what resources they do have from policing effectively. Does that sound like a fit for purpose organisation to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's appear insignificant by comparison
I am a serving officer with a fair bit of exposure to the corporate / strategic side for one reason or another. Let's leave aside all the subjective issues around public satisfaction/alienation of the police service from society/role of the police in society which are emotive and highly subjective. Let's focus just on a couple of areas that are entirely rational.
The current model for policing isn't affordable. I don't know if you're a policeman or not but just read through this thread; it is full of serving frontline officers providing anecdotal evidence that budget pressures are constraining policing to an unsustainable level. Secondly that same post trawl will see those same officers venting their frustrations at non core activity and administrivia blocking what resources they do have from policing effectively. Does that sound like a fit for purpose organisation to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's appear insignificant by comparison
The largest area of current reform around policing is economically based - the rights and wrongs I am not interested in for this conversation. The Government have changed the financial specification for the model in the form of a 20% cut to funding. Every force is going through the process of achieving that. Any model can become unaffordable when it is made so by external factors. It's readjusting and reforming to meet it. It's a fine example of the police changing.
An organisation that spends 80% of its funding on staff is going to be hit hard by a 20% reduction in funding (I don't believe the 20% takes into consideration inflation over the three years so it's not even in real terms). That will result in a poorer service. What we resent is being told by the Government that the same levels of service can be provided for less.
The main barriers to major operational change (as I said earlier) are essentially risk-based ones. Put bluntly, the occasional person would have to die in improbable circumstances due to there not being an array of risk-averse legislation, policy, procedure and processes. The other side would be the freeing up of police time to prevent other deaths and incidents. The problem is the latter isn't directly measurable. The obsession with 'learning the lessons' every time something goes wrong leads to a plethora of new legislation, policy, procedure and processes to try and prevent a highly unlikely repeat incident (e.g. Fiona Pilkington). On an individual basis and in the emotive after-effect these may seem like a good idea, but it does feel like 'death by a thousand cuts' at times. This becomes even more pronounced when there are fewer officer. How often do you see outcomes from 'learning lessons' where things are removed? I don't recall one.
I still maintain the model is fit for purpose in a fundamental sense like I described earlier. You say police don't like / want to change - they'd jump at the chance to have less paperwork and procedures. There's no Government willing to allow that though for the reasons above. I don't see how the current model can be much better whilst operating within the current external limitations.
La Liga said:
Put bluntly, the occasional person would have to die in improbable circumstances due to there not being an array of risk-averse legislation, policy, procedure and processes.
There'd also have to be more support for the officers should/if this happened, rather than the media destruction that would no doubt follow.La Liga said:
they'd jump at the chance to have less paperwork and procedures. There's no Government willing to allow that though for the reasons above ... external limitations.
On that note ^ I think that a great part of the increases in the paperwork side of things (over decades) have come about through increased demand for information from the defence side of the legal system.I don't think it is within the police service's control to reduce or do away with much of that demand.
TheEnd said:
Same here, plenty of noise about the voting process, how unusual it is, what it could mean etc, but I have no idea who is in the running, and what their ideas would be.
I'm not sure if it is down to the media getting so close to the story they haven't noticed that no one else has been following, or because we are used to political parties with clear themes and party political broadcasts to inform people of the choices, compared with nothing as applicable for the commissioner role.
I'd probably vote for anyone with the surname Gordon.
I'm not sure if it is down to the media getting so close to the story they haven't noticed that no one else has been following, or because we are used to political parties with clear themes and party political broadcasts to inform people of the choices, compared with nothing as applicable for the commissioner role.
I'd probably vote for anyone with the surname Gordon.
I'll throw this into the pot for comparison.
Are there too many layers? Are there enough boots on the street?
Dependant upon whether you include chief constables separately or count them same as the Met commissioner (debatable) then there are 11 ranks. Maybe these days one should also count PCSO which I reckon takes it to 12. If you count the Met Commissioner separately from CCs that takes it to 13. If you exclude the Mets the number of ranks is 9 going from PC to CC, 10 if including PCSO.
Svenska polisen has 11 ranks which includes Rikspolisenchef the top post in the country, equivalent to commisioner of the Met. Note I have counted Inspektor and Kriminalinspektor as one rank.
In England and Wales population 56.1m had in 2011 acc Home Office figures 139.564 officers, 264 per 100k population, of which 201 constables per 100k. 4.4 million recorded crimes.
Sweden popn 9.5 million, had 20,000 officers, which is 210 per 100k of population. 1.7 million recorded crimes. Sorry I don't have the breakdown between ranks, but much less top heavy.
This doesn't look too favourable a set of numbers for the UK force, however the fly in the ointment is that Svenskapolisen has a very large civilian support staff, which makes the numbers to 300 per 100k of population.
The equivalent UK civilian staff has and is being doubly decimated under the current spending review, with sworn officers fulfilling these functions.
Presumably any figures available to include UK civvies are no longer current nor accurate, not that I would trust anything from the Home Office anyway.
Anyone in the UK job at the sharp end care to comment on my summary, "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. Too many desks counting stats* and targets, not enough boots on the street.**"
Are there too many layers? Are there enough boots on the street?
Dependant upon whether you include chief constables separately or count them same as the Met commissioner (debatable) then there are 11 ranks. Maybe these days one should also count PCSO which I reckon takes it to 12. If you count the Met Commissioner separately from CCs that takes it to 13. If you exclude the Mets the number of ranks is 9 going from PC to CC, 10 if including PCSO.
Svenska polisen has 11 ranks which includes Rikspolisenchef the top post in the country, equivalent to commisioner of the Met. Note I have counted Inspektor and Kriminalinspektor as one rank.
In England and Wales population 56.1m had in 2011 acc Home Office figures 139.564 officers, 264 per 100k population, of which 201 constables per 100k. 4.4 million recorded crimes.
Sweden popn 9.5 million, had 20,000 officers, which is 210 per 100k of population. 1.7 million recorded crimes. Sorry I don't have the breakdown between ranks, but much less top heavy.
This doesn't look too favourable a set of numbers for the UK force, however the fly in the ointment is that Svenskapolisen has a very large civilian support staff, which makes the numbers to 300 per 100k of population.
The equivalent UK civilian staff has and is being doubly decimated under the current spending review, with sworn officers fulfilling these functions.
Presumably any figures available to include UK civvies are no longer current nor accurate, not that I would trust anything from the Home Office anyway.
Anyone in the UK job at the sharp end care to comment on my summary, "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. Too many desks counting stats* and targets, not enough boots on the street.**"
- * The irony of this, considering the nature of the post is noted and heartfelt apologies tendered.
- ** Boots on the street is just an expression for troops on response, it is most definitely not a statement about foot patrols.
FiF said:
Svenskapolisen has a very large civilian support staff, which makes the numbers to 300 per 100k of population.
Note that they also do a lot more from their police stations with those civilian support staff including issuing new passports which we have a whole bureaucracy for!FiF said:
I'll throw this into the pot for comparison.
Are there too many layers? Are there enough boots on the street?
264 per 100k population 4.4 million recorded crimes.
210 per 100k of population. 1.7 million recorded crimes.
Perhaps the remit of the police is different in other European countries too?Are there too many layers? Are there enough boots on the street?
264 per 100k population 4.4 million recorded crimes.
210 per 100k of population. 1.7 million recorded crimes.
IainT said:
FiF said:
Svenskapolisen has a very large civilian support staff, which makes the numbers to 300 per 100k of population.
Note that they also do a lot more from their police stations with those civilian support staff including issuing new passports which we have a whole bureaucracy for!I have great sympathies with the UK guys and what they are facing, we went through a similar 20% cut malarkey driven by Chiefs who had not the FFC how things really worked, at which point I handed in my ticket as just didn't want to be grovelling around at 65, but I have real difficulties squaring the circle on the UK numbers.
Derek Smith said:
This reflects research carried out around that time - not that I'm suggesting the barrister has pinched it without attirubtion - the conclusion being that the best deterent was the likelihood of getting caught. There was no doubt about it, the evidence was overwhelming. Most offenders did not expect to get caught. Increase the possibility of catching offenders decreases that specific crime.
Such research did not sit well with governments who wanted to pull expensive patrolling officers off the streets and they concentrated on other research, most notably that a patrolling officer was unlikely to come across a crime. The answer to this is that this shows how effective a patrolling officer is, but the one chosen was that the PC on the beat was a waste of space.
I loved patrolling. Getting to know your locals is what it is all about. When I was running my first shift in Brighton I had a little operation: two PCs would get to know local vagrants and try and get them off the street to lower anti-social behaviour. It was a total success. But on top of that we got so much intelligence. There was a body (found in a cemetary) with no witnesses and little in the way of useful evidence. The CID were stymied. My lads asked around and within 12 hours of the body being found had a name, a location (Glasgow), and a likely address. The bloke was arrested the following day, less than 12 hours after he got off the train.
The operation was cancelled by my bosses about a week later as too expensive in staffing.
I was in the nick once, writing up a report, when I got a phone call from a little newsagents where I used to have a cup of tea a couple of times a week. Nice bloke, CRO from way back. He'd seen someone 'up to no good.' I ran down there (I was in civvies) just in time to see him coming out of premisis. He ran away but I caught him just as he was disposing of a couple of purses and some other stuff.
I got a mention in the 'pink 'un', the weekly CID 'good work'. I didn't think I deserved it but then I'd been cultivating this bloke, and others, for some time and so I think the result was good.
I found this a very revealing post. Information is the life blood of a police force, you dont get it by sitting at a desk filling in forms or driving around in a car fiddling with a Blackberry. It must break this poster's heart to be told how to do his job by someone with and MBA and a spreadsheet.Such research did not sit well with governments who wanted to pull expensive patrolling officers off the streets and they concentrated on other research, most notably that a patrolling officer was unlikely to come across a crime. The answer to this is that this shows how effective a patrolling officer is, but the one chosen was that the PC on the beat was a waste of space.
I loved patrolling. Getting to know your locals is what it is all about. When I was running my first shift in Brighton I had a little operation: two PCs would get to know local vagrants and try and get them off the street to lower anti-social behaviour. It was a total success. But on top of that we got so much intelligence. There was a body (found in a cemetary) with no witnesses and little in the way of useful evidence. The CID were stymied. My lads asked around and within 12 hours of the body being found had a name, a location (Glasgow), and a likely address. The bloke was arrested the following day, less than 12 hours after he got off the train.
The operation was cancelled by my bosses about a week later as too expensive in staffing.
I was in the nick once, writing up a report, when I got a phone call from a little newsagents where I used to have a cup of tea a couple of times a week. Nice bloke, CRO from way back. He'd seen someone 'up to no good.' I ran down there (I was in civvies) just in time to see him coming out of premisis. He ran away but I caught him just as he was disposing of a couple of purses and some other stuff.
I got a mention in the 'pink 'un', the weekly CID 'good work'. I didn't think I deserved it but then I'd been cultivating this bloke, and others, for some time and so I think the result was good.
The statutary environment can't be changed by the PCCs(well not alone, but added together they would be irresistable) but resources can be shifted and I would expect the local communities would understand and welcome this sort of intellignet approach.
Edit, makes me wish I was standing now, I would love to give quality people like this the chance they want. I didnt bother to edit the spolling.
Edited by SMGB on Wednesday 24th October 13:52
ClaphamGT3 said:
The current model for policing isn't affordable. I don't know if you're a policeman or not but just read through this thread; it is full of serving frontline officers providing anecdotal evidence that budget pressures are constraining policing to an unsustainable level. Secondly that same post trawl will see those same officers venting their frustrations at non core activity and administrivia blocking what resources they do have from policing effectively. Does that sound like a fit for purpose organisation to you because it certainly doesn't to me.
Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's etc, appear insignificant by comparison
It is an interesting point of view, the one about police not wanting to participate in shaping the police for the future. The present government has organised the biggest change to policing in this country since 1829 and did they consider what the police wanted? It is already certain that the politicians will change the police for political and not practical reasons.Only a few posts ago, someone referred to the need not to fiddle round the edges but remove the barriers to real reform. I think that poster is a policeman.
So many posts in this section from policemen and women make clear that transformation is desparately needed yet, so often, its those same officers who want to throw rocks at those trying to make change possible.
As I have said so often, the police really have to change their attitude; the longer they leave it before meaningfully engaging in the debate about the future of policing, the more certain it is that politicians will shape the future of policing for them - and that will be a dis-service to the people of the UK that will make all the Hillsboroughs, all the Tomlinsons, all the Guildford fours, all the Blair Peach's etc, appear insignificant by comparison
I accept your point that when the current changes are proved to be disasterous, it will be the police themselves who will be blamed and not the politicians. But it was every thus. A political party makes a mess of it, blames someone else and those who support the particular party join in.
Do you think that the police can somehow block change? There's a thought.
I wrote an article for a police magazine criticising the then current Codes of Practice, which were under review. I got a visit from the professor in charge of the particular section, identification, and I put my point of view, this in the January when the Codes were to go live in the April. During a tea break I asked him what other identification officers had suggested. he answered that I was the only one who had been seen, asked for an opinion or even written to.
So we got CoPs written and modified by academics who had no idea of the reality of policing.
The changes going through at the moment are politically inspired. It is prepatory to privetisation of much of the police. This is a massive change, not in any manifesto. You didn't vote for it, I didn't vote for it but it will come.
You quote a number of historical incidents and Tomlinson. Compare the English/Welsh police performance with that of other European forces. Scandals in other countries make ours insignificant. All the good things about the English/Welsh police is being thrown away by this government without reference to those actually doing the job. Why should Cameron ask? He doesn't care what the police want.
FiF said:
IainT said:
FiF said:
Svenskapolisen has a very large civilian support staff, which makes the numbers to 300 per 100k of population.
Note that they also do a lot more from their police stations with those civilian support staff including issuing new passports which we have a whole bureaucracy for!I have great sympathies with the UK guys and what they are facing, we went through a similar 20% cut malarkey driven by Chiefs who had not the FFC how things really worked, at which point I handed in my ticket as just didn't want to be grovelling around at 65, but I have real difficulties squaring the circle on the UK numbers.
I have great sympathy by anyone losing their jobs due to cuts because I suspect the issue is with management and the ridiculously politicised way the service runs. Like the NHS it's bounced from one parliament to another and used to score points rather than getting on with doing it's job well.
IainT said:
I wonder how Sweden can seemingly do more with the same of less..?
Perhaps they are not viewed as Society's sticking plaster, have 'specialist services' (mental health, child support agencies etc) that don't knock off at 5pm and weekends and have a more robust approach to Facebook rubbish. We've just had a call from someone who found a used hypodermic syringe. They rang Environmental health who said 'nothing to do with us, call the Police'. They then rang the local drug support centre who said 'nothing to do with us, call the Police'. So under the 'it'll be the Police's fault if someone pricks themselves', a patrol has had to be dispatched to the address, pick up the syringe and take it for disposal. This has taken an hour. An hour when that Office could have been investigating crime.
The Police are an organisation who are not allowed to say no. Even when the ones that should be dealing can't be bothered.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff