Metropolitan Police Merge Boroughs
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-430335...
What do we think of this then?
What do we think of this then?
BBC said:
The current 32 borough model will be condensed to 12 Basic Command Units (BCU) made up of two or three boroughs.
The force warned its numbers are due to fall to 30,000 by April, but said the BCU move will "improve efficiency"
The force warned its numbers are due to fall to 30,000 by April, but said the BCU move will "improve efficiency"
The amalgamations might well save money in the short term. Such cuts generally do if one ignores the costs of the change. However, it is a different matter in the medium term.
The workload stays the same. The number of operational officers remains the same. The only real savings are a reduction of senior officers and that rarely covers the costs of the reorganisation.
Going by my experience of a series of such amalgamations, the work of the senior officers has to be completed by someone. This, in the past, often amounted to employing civilians to perform such roles, but the initial period of having people queuing for the roles is often short-lived. In the end, the force has to pay the going rate for suitably qualified senior staff.
On the coal face, amalgamations often give rise to unintended additional costs. One massive saving I ran through was to communications rooms. Instead of each division having its own comms set up, often one police officer, it made sense to have a central one, force control room, and satellite ones to control various individual incidents. Within 5 years, there was a return to local comms to assist with changes brought about by government demands.
All that money, all that time, all the people, and all the savings wasted and some more.
One particular problem for one force was geography. Fewer middle management officers, with roles defined in law, made for lots of savings, but what about when there's just one on duty for a massive area and s/he needs to get to a location some miles away?
I once drove from Brighton to Hastings, then to Eastbourne, a short stop at Hove, and then back to Brighton in the wee smalls. This was in the good old days when the police had officers and resources, at least according to the theory. Heaven knows what it is like now. About an hour's work and five hours in total - what a waste of a middle ranked officer's time, not to mention the on costs. But then the costs of any savings are never taken into consideration.
However, this amalgamation seems driven internally, apart from the need for £400m savings. These tend to be somewhat more reasonable than specific, micromanaged demands from governments.
I could write a book on the costs of government savings.
The workload stays the same. The number of operational officers remains the same. The only real savings are a reduction of senior officers and that rarely covers the costs of the reorganisation.
Going by my experience of a series of such amalgamations, the work of the senior officers has to be completed by someone. This, in the past, often amounted to employing civilians to perform such roles, but the initial period of having people queuing for the roles is often short-lived. In the end, the force has to pay the going rate for suitably qualified senior staff.
On the coal face, amalgamations often give rise to unintended additional costs. One massive saving I ran through was to communications rooms. Instead of each division having its own comms set up, often one police officer, it made sense to have a central one, force control room, and satellite ones to control various individual incidents. Within 5 years, there was a return to local comms to assist with changes brought about by government demands.
All that money, all that time, all the people, and all the savings wasted and some more.
One particular problem for one force was geography. Fewer middle management officers, with roles defined in law, made for lots of savings, but what about when there's just one on duty for a massive area and s/he needs to get to a location some miles away?
I once drove from Brighton to Hastings, then to Eastbourne, a short stop at Hove, and then back to Brighton in the wee smalls. This was in the good old days when the police had officers and resources, at least according to the theory. Heaven knows what it is like now. About an hour's work and five hours in total - what a waste of a middle ranked officer's time, not to mention the on costs. But then the costs of any savings are never taken into consideration.
However, this amalgamation seems driven internally, apart from the need for £400m savings. These tend to be somewhat more reasonable than specific, micromanaged demands from governments.
I could write a book on the costs of government savings.
I worked on a command team that had 1 Chief Supt, 3 Supt, and 6 Chief Inspectors. It merged with another command unit that had 1 Chief Supt, 1 Supt and 3 Chief Inspectors to merge two very busy city areas. They also reduced other ranks accordingly to a demand profile that has since proven to be as accurate had it been written by a toddler.
That workload (after further reductions since) is now covered by one Supt and one Chief Inspector.
They are currently trying to get permission to have a day increased to 30hrs a day and a week increased to eight days, to try to fit in a workload which is ever increasing, not diminishing.
On the hours they currently do (25 hrs plus unpaid work is the norm- every week )I’m guessing they are hovering at an hourly rate similar to a PC.
All that happens is work is downgraded to lower ranks, the work itself doesn’t go away. Therefore Sgts and Inspectors do less front line supervision and the system eventually clogs up.
Whilst on paper mergers can seem to save money intitially, if you account in incidentals such as increased overtime expenditure caused by less frontline staff, fuel costs etc etc in the medium to long term they actually seem to cost more than the intended savings.
That workload (after further reductions since) is now covered by one Supt and one Chief Inspector.
They are currently trying to get permission to have a day increased to 30hrs a day and a week increased to eight days, to try to fit in a workload which is ever increasing, not diminishing.
On the hours they currently do (25 hrs plus unpaid work is the norm- every week )I’m guessing they are hovering at an hourly rate similar to a PC.
All that happens is work is downgraded to lower ranks, the work itself doesn’t go away. Therefore Sgts and Inspectors do less front line supervision and the system eventually clogs up.
Whilst on paper mergers can seem to save money intitially, if you account in incidentals such as increased overtime expenditure caused by less frontline staff, fuel costs etc etc in the medium to long term they actually seem to cost more than the intended savings.
megaphone said:
Losing the higher ranks also stifles ambition as there is far less chance of a promotion. Mate of mine has been an inspector for years, tried three times now for chief inspector, last time there where 10 candidates for one position.
Tell him to go and work for Aldi for a few years, then come straight back in as a direct-entry Super.
megaphone said:
Losing the higher ranks also stifles ambition as there is far less chance of a promotion. Mate of mine has been an inspector for years, tried three times now for chief inspector, last time there where 10 candidates for one position.
Only if ambition is to rise through the ranks, that's not the ambition for a lot of officers.Getting rid of management can be rather short-sighted.
I was originally on the HPDS scheme or whatever it's called these days. Thankfully I decided it wasn't for me (then more thankfully left the police altogether
). It's awful to be to be a CI / Supt at the moment and no where near worth the pay.
I was originally on the HPDS scheme or whatever it's called these days. Thankfully I decided it wasn't for me (then more thankfully left the police altogether
). It's awful to be to be a CI / Supt at the moment and no where near worth the pay. Yipper said:
Good to see the police getting more efficient and looking after your money. Crime in the UK has fallen a lot during the past 20-30 years, so fewer police officers are needed.
Even if that were true, Crime has got much more complex (take a look at the disclosure discussions currently on-going), and only amounts to less than 25% of the Police workload...Particularly significant at the Ranks where there is a requirement in Law (Custody Sgt, Authorising Insp, Supt Authorities) but also where there is high risk (Firearms, Public Order, Senior Investigating Officer).
La Liga said:
Getting rid of management can be rather short-sighted.
I was originally on the HPDS scheme or whatever it's called these days. Thankfully I decided it wasn't for me (then more thankfully left the police altogether). It's awful to be to be a CI / Supt at the moment and no where near worth the pay.
I was told by a 50+-year-old super on his second marriage, and there were lots of rumours about the state of it, that I should go for promotion to CI. I'd called him out on firearms incidents all but one night for his week and once twice in one night, although to be fair he was still in his office completing necessary paperwork for #1 when I phoned him for #2, so in reality not a callout. Still seven in seven days. I was originally on the HPDS scheme or whatever it's called these days. Thankfully I decided it wasn't for me (then more thankfully left the police altogether
). It's awful to be to be a CI / Supt at the moment and no where near worth the pay. It's got worse since then.
One of my better decisions was ignoring his suggestion.
What bewilders me is why they then go for further promotion.
I was on call 24/7 when i/c ID parades, that was for two years, and I got fed up with being called on average a bit over twice a month.
Red 4 said:
The poor old Met, eh ?
Just 30,000 cops to cover about 600 square miles.
So that leaves about 90,000 cops for everywhere else in England and Wales.
Isn't population more relevant than area. Do you think the Scottish highlands should have 20 times as many police as Greater London? Just 30,000 cops to cover about 600 square miles.
So that leaves about 90,000 cops for everywhere else in England and Wales.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Red 4 said:
The poor old Met, eh ?
Just 30,000 cops to cover about 600 square miles.
So that leaves about 90,000 cops for everywhere else in England and Wales.
Isn't population more relevant than area. Do you think the Scottish highlands should have 20 times as many police as Greater London? Just 30,000 cops to cover about 600 square miles.
So that leaves about 90,000 cops for everywhere else in England and Wales.
Population of England and Wales (excluding London) is about 48 million.
Total 56 million.
Yet London has a quarter of all the police.
I haven't mentioned Scotland.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff