Police and Crime Commissioner absolute farce.

[jonnyb]

Citizen09 said:

jonnyb said:

Well Im off to vote. Giving the public a say in how they are policed?

The PCC will have no control over operational policing.

But they do control the budget. And money talks.

[Elroy Blue]

jonnyb said:

Well Im off to vote. Giving the public a say in how they are policed? Hardly a dangerous farce. Hopefully the police will realise who they work for.

A very naive statement. I work to protect the public. I don't want to work for a Politician whose only ambition is to remain in office.

But if the PCC decides he wants me to stop siezing class A drugs, arresting Organised crime groups and targeting serial car thieves, so be it. I'll walk around a housing estate reporting people for letting their dogs st on the grass and targeting motorists using 'my estate as a racetrack', because that is what is demanded at EVERY public meeting. (by the dozen people that turn up at them)

Edited by Elroy Blue on Thursday 15th November 10:15

[Daggers89]

I'm currently working as a poll clerk for said election and since 7am I haven't had one voter at my Polling Station - goes to show really..

[jonnyb]

Elroy Blue said:

jonnyb said:

Well Im off to vote. Giving the public a say in how they are policed? Hardly a dangerous farce. Hopefully the police will realise who they work for.

A very naive statement. I work to protect the public. I don't want to work for a Politician whose only ambition is to remain in office.

But if the PCC decides he wants me to stop siezing class A drugs, arresting Organised crime groups and targeting serial car thieves, so be it. I'll walk around a housing estate reporting people for letting their dogs st on the grass and targeting motorists using 'my estate as a racetrack', because that is what is demanded at EVERY public meeting.

You work FOR the public you protect. It is the public that pays your wage every month.

That public now gets to elect the person directly responsible for policing in their area, rather than just the party that appoints the Home Secretary. How is this a bad thing? If you didn't want to work for a politician then a life in the public sector is not for you, because the public sector is run by politicians elected by the people that pay your wages.

[Elroy Blue]

jonnyb said:

You work FOR the public you protect. It is the public that pays your wage every month.

That public now gets to elect the person directly responsible for policing in their area, rather than just the party that appoints the Home Secretary. How is this a bad thing? If you didn't want to work for a politician then a life in the public sector is not for you, because the public sector is run by politicians elected by the people that pay your wages.

The current Police Authority is typically made up of seventeen members – nine elected members (who are drawn from the local authority) and eight independent members, at least three of whom must be magistrates. Not a perfect system, but it stops the abuse of the system by a single PCC who is interested in votes.

And the cost! It isn’t about 1 individual and their salary AND pension. No mention of their deputy (+salary/pension), the deputy’s deputies, their accommodation, their ‘back office’ support, their expenses, their transport. The cost of this farce could have paid for 3000 Police Officers. Instead, lets slash numbers and make promises that can never be met.

But I, like every other Police Officer, is sick of the whole damned thing. I'll spend my day targeting motorists on your estate if you want. Just don't moan about the sudden influx of drugs into the area or the fact your BMW has been nicked by an out of town crime gang.

[IroningMan]

Derek Smith said:

There can be no argument against that. Patrolling officers cultivate informants. That might sound a bit cloak and dagger but in fact what it means is talking to people, making them feel confident enough to put what they have seen to you. They tell you their problems, you sort some of them and they feel grateful. They then supply you with that critical information.

I was doing door to door and knocked ont he door of a bloke whom I knew as a guard at premises on my beat. He actually had no info, being at work when it happened, but he asked around. Those who refused to talk to strange police officers were more than willing to talk to him. He then told me and the info led to an arrest.

The stats suggest patrolling officers see very little crime. The stats are wrong.

Once you take patrolling officers from the streets then the cultivation, the confidence, goes. Has gone?

Virtually every SP&L debate is teeming with officers stating the opposite view - 'bobbies on the beat' might be what the public want but they are a waste of space is what we constantly hear.

[jonnyb]

Elroy Blue said:

jonnyb said:

You work FOR the public you protect. It is the public that pays your wage every month.

That public now gets to elect the person directly responsible for policing in their area, rather than just the party that appoints the Home Secretary. How is this a bad thing? If you didn't want to work for a politician then a life in the public sector is not for you, because the public sector is run by politicians elected by the people that pay your wages.

The current Police Authority is typically made up of seventeen members – nine elected members (who are drawn from the local authority) and eight independent members, at least three of whom must be magistrates. Not a perfect system, but it stops the abuse of the system by a single PCC who is interested in votes.

And the cost! It isn’t about 1 individual and their salary AND pension. No mention of their deputy (+salary/pension), the deputy’s deputies, their accommodation, their ‘back office’ support, their expenses, their transport. The cost of this farce could have paid for 3000 Police Officers. Instead, lets slash numbers and make promises that can never be met.

But I, like every other Police Officer, is sick of the whole damned thing. I'll spend my day targeting motorists on your estate if you want. Just don't moan about the sudden influx of drugs into the area or the fact your BMW has been nicked by an out of town crime gang.

Although some members of the PA are elected councillors, they were not elected to the Police Authority, or certainly not by me. Now I get to have a direct say in who runs the police. This is only for the good. It isn't a perfect system, but to my mind its better that the current one, because the public gets a say.

As for the cost, its a drop in the ocean compared to the 4bn the Government wasted on a useless computer system for the NHS, or the 15bn we are about to spend on Trident. Hopefully if the PCC model is successful, then costs will be reduced as other management levels are removed.

And as has already been stated the PCC will not be setting police priorities. But yes, if im the victim of anti social behaviour, or my village suffers from boy racers, or other problems that you deem unworthy of your time, I would now expect the police respond to these issues. You may say this will take you away from other tasks, but just like the rest of the country, your going to have to do more for less.

[Efbe]

Derek Smith said:

Efbe said:

Why should I or any other average joe have the faintest idea what the police should be focusing on or doing?

I have absolutely no knowledge of the procedures, actual statistics (not just media peddled crap) or anything to do with crime. so how the hell can I decide what should be done?

As a member of the public you should have a way of pointing out what you want from the police in the same way that I could tell the plumber, who has just left my house, that I wanted a radiator in a specific location. He suggested moving it to a different location as it would be more efficient and, after discussion, I agreed. I did not tell him how to solder the joints, where to join the pipes, how to switch off the water (there was an isolating 'gate' which meant he didn't have to) and anything of the minutiae of plumbing. He's the pro and I trusted him. If it doesn't do what I wanted I will get onto his bosses and ask for it to be corrected.

The problem with the government is that they do not understand (and many seem not to care) how policing works and instead of saying what they want they go for headline grabbing initiatives and then the HomSec moves on and the replacement, guess what, goes for headlines again. We are told that the government has decided that there will be more police officers on foot patrol, quicker response times, fewer officers in offices, more intelligence led investigations, less bureaucracy, more stats, more efficiency, more control.

Someone suggested that the police should change. I joined in 1975 and retired 30 years later. The one constant was change. We went from local beat officers to quicker response to local beat officers to quicker response to local beat officers. It costs a fortune and hit efficiency but if that was what the public wanted then so be it. But they didn't/don't. They want to feel safe, have offenders prosecuted and to have their property protected. They do not care about change, they do not care what processes the police go through to achieve these targets, but their desires are ignored.

There is much the police could do to improve efficiency but they are barred from doing so to a great extent. We could do with fewer supervisors but the processes we are required to go though need more supervisors. The government suggests officers spend too much time in the nicks filling out forms (as if any officer wants to spend tim in the nick) and then demand more stats, more reports, more waste.

The biggest change I noticed was from independent police forces to political control by the HomSec. This latest move is another nail.

I would vote for the police commissioner who would allow the Police to carry guns, and carry out summary justice, without having to answer to anyone.

from what I know about policing (judge dredd, and robocop) this seems to work. I represent a huge proportion of the UK, and I know nothing about policing.

[14-7]

jonnyb said:

You may say this will take you away from other tasks, but just like the rest of the country, your going to have to do more for less.

That is what PACT meetings are for.

You think an elected person gives a damn what you think? If you do take a look at MP's.

[FiF]

Well just back, attended the polling station at 11:50 ish.

Spoilt paper ans made it clear it was a spoiled paper and why. Not proud of it, but felt no alternative open, we didn't have any pot noodles.

Incidentally before me there had been 8, yes only eight previous attendees. A couple arrived in the car park as I was leaving, but they appeared to be going for a pub lunch, nevertheless they may also vote so the turnout might be in double figures by now.

[Derek Smith]

IroningMan said:

Derek Smith said:

There can be no argument against that. Patrolling officers cultivate informants. That might sound a bit cloak and dagger but in fact what it means is talking to people, making them feel confident enough to put what they have seen to you. They tell you their problems, you sort some of them and they feel grateful. They then supply you with that critical information.

I was doing door to door and knocked ont he door of a bloke whom I knew as a guard at premises on my beat. He actually had no info, being at work when it happened, but he asked around. Those who refused to talk to strange police officers were more than willing to talk to him. He then told me and the info led to an arrest.

The stats suggest patrolling officers see very little crime. The stats are wrong.

Once you take patrolling officers from the streets then the cultivation, the confidence, goes. Has gone?

Virtually every SP&L debate is teeming with officers stating the opposite view - 'bobbies on the beat' might be what the public want but they are a waste of space is what we constantly hear.

Without intelligence the police cannot operate efficiently. If a serious crime takes place CID will approach the local beat officer. When I ran a shift there was a murder on our ground with no witnesses, no DNA, no evidence, just a rained-on body in a graveyard. Two of my patrolling PCs gave a name and (recently vacated) address to the incident room within 24 hours if memory serves. The bloke had cleared off to Scotland but was brought back within two days.

PCSOs can provide the same function.

For some reason patrolling PCs are looked down upon by all other officers. I can't think why. The role is probably the most difficult to fulfill yet when you get a good local beat officer they are a gem. When you get a great one, the whole crime scene changes in the area.

When we had a double murder of children where the victims lived in a rough estate, there was a singular lack of cooperation, despite the horrid nature of the crime. The LBOs were the only route in.

Hardly a waste of space in my opinion.

My point of view is rather old-fashioned. I think the police should be part of the community and the best way of facilitating this is to have bobbies on the beat. Whilst they may or may not see crimes being committed, they certainly stop them.

There are problems with LBOs. They can become very aprochial. If it happens off their ground, it doesn't happen.

I was in the Lake District on holiday when someone fell overboard from a boat. The shoreline needed searching so the local beat officer organised the locals. He also approached me as he'd recognised me as old bill. So the next day a group of people he trusted were divided into four groups. Me and another off-duty out of force officer he'd found were given one group each and we searched the foreshore, the LBO in wellies, wax-cotton and with his spaniel.

Imagine the orgnisation required if no LBO.

If you were the SIO for a major incident in a particular area you were not familiar with, who would you approach for background information?

As I say, PCSOs are cheaper than police officers and in the current climate must be seen as the only viable source of local beat officers. But, as you can see, I'm firmly of the opinion that a good LBO is worth his/her weight in files.

[Sparta VAG]

jonnyb said:

And as has already been stated the PCC will not be setting police priorities. But yes, if im the victim of anti social behaviour, or my village suffers from boy racers, or other problems that you deem unworthy of your time, I would now expect the police respond to these issues. You may say this will take you away from other tasks, but just like the rest of the country, your going to have to do more for less.

Just for posterity, please write a list of the more serious crimes you'd prefer the police stopped dealing with to concentrate on ASB and speeding motorists when the PCC wants to be re-elected in 5 years time. Pick any of the following from my current in-tray:

Handling stolen goods
Linked burglary series
Linked armed robbery series
1 x rape (domestic)
2 x sexual assault
2 x GBH (one with bottle, one with knife)

I will of course only be too happy to drop any of these to deal with a local boy racer and give him a s.59 warning when the PCC fancies another 5 years of having their snout in the trough.

I've yet to ever attend a community meeting or read a public survey feedback form that wants the police to deal with any of those serious type of offences, even though in objective terms they are far more serious and merit far more resources than picking up dog sh*t and moving on youths who dare to congregate in public because there's nothing else for them to do.

"Doing more with less" is a vague non-specific cliche to placate the feeble-minded. When resources are stretched and reduced in any area of any business, you focus on the core issues that are the most crucial and are most critical to day to day functioning, not moving your resources away from core areas (rape, burglary and robbery) to deal with the superficial and peripheral (dog mess, noisy kids, and cars with loud exhausts).

[Citizen09]

Sparta VAG said:

jonnyb said:

yes, if im the victim of anti social behaviour, or my village suffers from boy racers, or other problems that you deem unworthy of your time, I would now expect the police respond to these issues. You may say this will take you away from other tasks, but just like the rest of the country, your going to have to do more for less.

"Doing more with less" is a vague non-specific cliche to placate the feeble-minded. When resources are stretched and reduced in any area of any business, you focus on the core issues that are the most crucial and are most critical

This. A PCC can promise what he or she likes, but (operationally) the police service will always have to respond to incidents in a graded and assessed fashion, which means with limited resources that those incidents where there is a risk to life will always be prioritised.

Anti-social behaviour (including anti-social motoring) will always be less of a priority (than above) despite any current fashions or promises.

Simply put, I can't respond to reports of anti-social behaviour, if I'm already responding to reports of violent incidents, or other incidents where there is some kind of risk to life, or other higher-graded incident. It's nothing to do with it being "unworthy" of my time.

Edited by Citizen09 on Thursday 15th November 14:05

[Derek Smith]

I voted at 1520. I was the 51st person to vote.

On the bright side, my own vote made up 2% of those polled in my area.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

I voted at 1520. I was the 51st person to vote.

On the bright side, my own vote made up 2% of those polled in my area.

I've just got back. The ladies there told me about 20 have voted.

[Daggers89]

REALIST123 said:

I've just got back. The ladies there told me about 20 have voted.

14 on my station now!

[Elroy Blue]

Good cooment on Pprune regarding the Chief of Defence Staff:


The next CDS should be a civvy. We could hold local elections with the political parties each having a contender, Independants would have to place a £5000 deposit. They could have the right to sack the chief of the army, navy or airforce if they wanted and dictate policy, even if they had no mil experiance at all. Best of all we will give them £120 grand and pay for their 'advisors'.

Of course that could never happen to a 'force' could it!

Must dash, off out to spoil a voting slip

[carinaman]

Derek Smith said:

My point of view is rather old-fashioned. I think the police should be part of the community and the best way of facilitating this is to have bobbies on the beat. Whilst they may or may not see crimes being committed, they certainly stop them.

'The police are the public and the public are the police'?

Perhaps they were, and the 'them and us' attitude that seems the norm here as much as out on the street confirms that's no longer the case?

The benefit of the current 'them and us' state of affairs is? It makes it easier if people don't have to think about it?

Automatic prosecution by speed cameras hasn't helped has it?

[Elroy Blue]

Accurate comment

http://touch.policeoracle.com/news/article.html?id...

[XCP]

MP's are all elected supposedly to represent the views of their constituents. Why anyone believes that a police commissioner is going to be any more inclined or effective at doing so is beyond me.
If such a position is deemed as necessary then at least let it be unpaid. That would surely stop some of the chancers and failed politicians getting elected.

Actually anyone elected is not a failed politician, but you know what I mean. Real politician might be a better way of putting it.