Police and Crime Commissioner absolute farce.

[SMGB]

Elroy Blue said:

Constant change over the 20 years I've been in. Good and bad.

Try Policing a city on a Friday night with 6 Officers, then coming into work nect day and finding e-mails from 'efficiency managers' telling you you haven't met the latest Government targets (that allegedly don't exist) Comfortable it ain't

If you can find another profession that is subject of the same scrutiny that Police Officers face, I'd be glad to hear it.

There are amchair warriors in every profession, and yes they are more than a bit irritating to those at the sharp end . Back in the 60s my sister had a B/F who was a serving PC (Bedford). I remember him telling us if we knew how limited the cover was our rates bought we would be furiuos. So the blue line has been thin for decades, I suspect that it's a fall off in public morals and behaviour that make it a bit more trying. The layers of paper dont help either I'm sure. If the PCCs can strip out the self serving deadwood they will be worth every penny.

[J5]

Elroy Blue said:

Constant change over the 20 years I've been in. Good and bad.

Try Policing a city on a Friday night with 6 Officers, then coming into work nect day and finding e-mails from 'efficiency managers' telling you you haven't met the latest Government targets (that allegedly don't exist) Comfortable it ain't

If you can find another profession that is subject of the same scrutiny that Police Officers face, I'd be glad to hear it.

6? You're lucky!



As for the Police changing, of course they're having to make changes. Any organisation that has 20% budget cuts will have to make huge changes in the way it works. Rural stations closing means local neighbourhood teams will need to move elsewhere; lots are moving into fire stations, or council offices. Custody centres at smaller stations are closing, meaning some teams have to travel 40+ minutes to their nearest custody. Response teams that used to carry their own investigations now have been split into a more pure response role, with an investigation team who carry the investigation workload.... that's what i've thought of in as long as it's taken me to type it, and bear in mind my policing knowledge is only of a small corner of it.

[IainT]

SMGB said:

You get a first and second preference, I cant wait.

We have two candidates - Tory and a Trougher, er, Labour councillor. No real choice and sod all information about them or their 'policies' beyond 'getting tough on anti-social behaviour' from the Tory and 'fighting the Tory cuts to the police force' form the trougher.

The Tory will get my vote though - he actually makes the point about cutting paperwork to give more street-time which sounds good in theory.

[Red 4]

IainT said:

The Tory will get my vote though - he actually makes the point about cutting paperwork to give more street-time which sounds good in theory.

Like politicians have been saying for the last 20 years ?

The opposite has happened.

[Elroy Blue]

Red 4 said:

IainT said:

The Tory will get my vote though - he actually makes the point about cutting paperwork to give more street-time which sounds good in theory.

Like politicians have been saying for the last 20 years ?

The opposite has happened.

A bit like Theresa May standing up and saying she had scrapped stop/search forms. The same day I had a pile of them in front of me to check over.

Politicians HAVE NOT cut paperwork. If they tell you that to your face, THEY ARE LYING.

[TheBear]

IainT said:

The Tory will get my vote though - he actually makes the point about cutting paperwork to give more street-time which sounds good in theory.

Every man and his dog since the beginning of time has come out with this sound bite. Everyone who sits outside the police always come up with sound bites and talk about change and getting officers out and focusing on core policing and how the police can alienate the public less.

Then they get into the role and guess what...nothing changes.

This is due IMHO to the fact that they are suddenly faced with the reality that to achieve these lovely sound bites they need numbers on the ground, and they just don't have numbers on the ground and there is no money to do this. That's when they start to fudge figures and reclassify stuff to make it look better to the public.

In my opinion officers I know would love to see changes, but for me there is only two choices.

1 - put more bodies on the line to combat the public demands on policing or
2 - reduce the remit of the police.

Intelligent people put their business heads on and imagine it's just a question of efficiency. That is no criticism to them as it seems logical from the outside, but spend a day with a response officer and you will be shocked at what you see and you will be saying there isn't enough people to deal with it all and why are we dealing with some of the stuff we are.

And then look around the organisation to see where you can get more officers from the supposed back room and onto the front line to become more efficient and you will see that there are none.

Edited by TheBear on Tuesday 23 October 17:31

[clived]

Red Devil said:

Try this - http://www.policeelegliactions.com/candidates/norf...

If that doesn't work for you, try http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/

[Derek Smith]

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.

[Elroy Blue]

A good example of Politicians and their devious double speak.

Cameron stands up and says "a higher percentage of Officers are now on the frontline". This obviously implies more Police Officers. However:

20 Officers, 15 on front line = 75%.
10 Officers, 8 on front line = 80%.

Substantially less, but more.

Cameron does maths and excels in deceit.

[XCP]

I'm with Derek.
I served almost 30 years and the one constant was change. Just before I left I was tasked with rewriting force policy on Cannabis possession in the light of the re-classification. I put a lot of work in and guess what happened?
If it wasn't serious it would be a joke.

[streaky]

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.

My son works in a town in the USA that has roughly half the population of the town in live in in the UK. Their police force is roughly the size of the one covering the county in which I live.

Go figure!

Streaky

[speedchick]

Just found the candidates for Lancashire on the BBC site.

We have a) limp dems, some guy from Nelson that specialises in criminal defence. b)Tory county councillor who apparently was a cabinet member for Highways and Transport. c)UK Indies are putting forward a councillor (and ex mayor), who served as a special constable in Blackpool. d) And the Labour guy is a county council cabinet member and former chair of resources for the Lancashire Police Authority.

Hmmmmmmmm

[Red 4]

Derek Smith said:

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.

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.

[Derek Smith]

TheBear said:

Every man and his dog since the beginning of time has come out with this sound bite. Everyone who sits outside the police always come up with sound bites and talk about change and getting officers out and focusing on core policing and how the police can alienate the public less.

Then they get into the role and guess what...nothing changes.

This is due IMHO to the fact that they are suddenly faced with the reality that to achieve these lovely sound bites they need numbers on the ground, and they just don't have numbers on the ground and there is no money to do this. That's when they start to fudge figures and reclassify stuff to make it look better to the public.

In my opinion officers I know would love to see changes, but for me there is only two choices.

1 - put more bodies on the line to combat the public demands on policing or
2 - reduce the remit of the police.

Intelligent people put their business heads on and imagine it's just a question of efficiency. That is no criticism to them as it seems logical from the outside, but spend a day with a response officer and you will be shocked at what you see and you will be saying there isn't enough people to deal with it all and why are we dealing with some of the stuff we are.

And then look around the organisation to see where you can get more officers from the supposed back room and onto the front line to become more efficient and you will see that there are none.

Too right. If you ask ten PCs what they want they will say less paperwork. As you say, we need more PCs on the street or less work. If the job doesn't require a warrant card then it doesn't require a police officer.

The Eastbourne Round Table visited police HQ and I, Ops 1, the senior officer on duty at that time, was tasked with entertaining them. I started by asking how many officers were patrolling Eastbourne at that time, around 8.30pm. The numbers ran from a dozen to over twice that number. When I told them there were (circa) two cars and three foot units they were shocked. When I ran up the assigned list and showed that all were answering a call from the public or dealing with prisoners (both cars is memory serves) the obvious question arose, what if another call comes in. I then showed them the list of calls waiting for a unit to be assigned. It was about a dozen or so. I was asked if they would all be answered that evening and I replied that it was extremely unlikely as we got about half a dozen calls an hour for E'bourne.

This was around 1998 or so. We had many more officers then.

I got, as I knew I'd get, advice as to what I could and could not say to 'important' members of the public but on the upside, I was never asked again to play nursmaid. So a result.

Every HomSec I can remember (apart from Blunkett?) has suggeted that they will decrease paperwork. If I remember correctly, the PACE Act was heralded as a way of ensuring that officers would spend more time patrolling rather than writing reports. That was a good one. Whilst I was, and remain, a strong supporter of most aspects of the act, it increased paperwork for a simple case dramatically. It went from an hour or so to, well how long is a piece of string. Certainly more than an hour or so.

So by all means believe what the MPs and PCCs suggest they will do about paperwork. But allow me to laugh at you.

Remember when labour suggested, at one conference, that the police would get n more officers? Firstly, all these increases had actually already arrived, some from more than two years previously, and secondly, from the same fund the police had to pay for their own IT upgrades.

[SMGB]

TheBear said:

This is due IMHO to the fact that they are suddenly faced with the reality that to achieve these lovely sound bites they need numbers on the ground, and they just don't have numbers on the ground and there is no money to do this. That's when they start to fudge figures and reclassify stuff to make it look better to the public.

In my opinion officers I know would love to see changes, but for me there is only two choices.

1 - put more bodies on the line to combat the public demands on policing or
2 - reduce the remit of the police.

Edited by TheBear on Tuesday 23 October 17:31

I do have some sympathy for this comment. The criminal justice system acts as a sump for society, often rather inappropriatley and very inefficiently. A case in point is the cuts made in mental health provision starting under M Thatcher. People who used to be locked up in what were known as lunatic asylums in those pre PC days now clog up a creaking system that shouldnt be dealing with them, all at a much greater cost to the public purse than before "the savings".

[streaky]

Derek Smith said:

TheBear said:

Every man and his dog since the beginning of time has come out with this sound bite. Everyone who sits outside the police always come up with sound bites and talk about change and getting officers out and focusing on core policing and how the police can alienate the public less.

Then they get into the role and guess what...nothing changes.

This is due IMHO to the fact that they are suddenly faced with the reality that to achieve these lovely sound bites they need numbers on the ground, and they just don't have numbers on the ground and there is no money to do this. That's when they start to fudge figures and reclassify stuff to make it look better to the public.

In my opinion officers I know would love to see changes, but for me there is only two choices.

1 - put more bodies on the line to combat the public demands on policing or
2 - reduce the remit of the police.

Intelligent people put their business heads on and imagine it's just a question of efficiency. That is no criticism to them as it seems logical from the outside, but spend a day with a response officer and you will be shocked at what you see and you will be saying there isn't enough people to deal with it all and why are we dealing with some of the stuff we are.

And then look around the organisation to see where you can get more officers from the supposed back room and onto the front line to become more efficient and you will see that there are none.

Too right. If you ask ten PCs what they want they will say less paperwork. As you say, we need more PCs on the street or less work. If the job doesn't require a warrant card then it doesn't require a police officer.

The Eastbourne Round Table visited police HQ and I, Ops 1, the senior officer on duty at that time, was tasked with entertaining them. I started by asking how many officers were patrolling Eastbourne at that time, around 8.30pm. The numbers ran from a dozen to over twice that number. When I told them there were (circa) two cars and three foot units they were shocked. When I ran up the assigned list and showed that all were answering a call from the public or dealing with prisoners (both cars is memory serves) the obvious question arose, what if another call comes in. I then showed them the list of calls waiting for a unit to be assigned. It was about a dozen or so. I was asked if they would all be answered that evening and I replied that it was extremely unlikely as we got about half a dozen calls an hour for E'bourne.

This was around 1998 or so. We had many more officers then.

I got, as I knew I'd get, advice as to what I could and could not say to 'important' members of the public but on the upside, I was never asked again to play nursmaid. So a result.

Every HomSec I can remember (apart from Blunkett?) has suggeted that they will decrease paperwork. If I remember correctly, the PACE Act was heralded as a way of ensuring that officers would spend more time patrolling rather than writing reports. That was a good one. Whilst I was, and remain, a strong supporter of most aspects of the act, it increased paperwork for a simple case dramatically. It went from an hour or so to, well how long is a piece of string. Certainly more than an hour or so.

So by all means believe what the MPs and PCCs suggest they will do about paperwork. But allow me to laugh at you.

Remember when labour suggested, at one conference, that the police would get n more officers? Firstly, all these increases had actually already arrived, some from more than two years previously, and secondly, from the same fund the police had to pay for their own IT upgrades.

Back in the late '80s, Roy Gocher [almost a great name for a copper], then Super for West Surrey had only one area car most nights to cover the entire W Surrey area. Plus ca change ...

Streaky

Edited by streaky on Wednesday 24th October 07:12

[Derek Smith]

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.

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.

[IainT]

Elroy Blue said:

Red 4 said:

IainT said:

The Tory will get my vote though - he actually makes the point about cutting paperwork to give more street-time which sounds good in theory.

Like politicians have been saying for the last 20 years ?

The opposite has happened.

A bit like Theresa May standing up and saying she had scrapped stop/search forms. The same day I had a pile of them in front of me to check over.

Politicians HAVE NOT cut paperwork. If they tell you that to your face, THEY ARE LYING.

Given the two options I have (besides not voting) the one not qqing about money will get my vote.

[anonymous-user]

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.

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 think that you are mixing up theory and reality.

That is the reality on the whole.

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?

[FiF]

ClaphamGT3 said:

FiF said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

So where is the evidence of transformational change within the police service?

I don't doubt that a lot of re-organisation and tactical/operational change goes on, as with any organisation, but where is the evidence that the police have explored and, where appropriate, embraced transformational change that keeps the service aligned to the needs of the society it serves?

I keep asking this question here & all the BiB/BiB/ supporters keep ducking it.

Probably because you just keep coming out with Bullst Bingo phrases.

You are just like Stuart on the Thick of It. Be on your way.

Sorry if big words scare you.......

Yet more bluster and still no answer to a simple question.

What scares me is that you seem to think with these empty words you are somehow making a point.

The people who have to start finding their place and doing their job in the Criminal Justice System are firstly the courts. The courts that the police put offenders in front of time and again only to see sentences which effectively say to these offenders that you will not have any effective punishment for your crimes.

The one thing that these people, the criminals fear, is a long stretch inside, and I mean a long stretch not physically out in three months, but two years plus actually inside. That also helps the public be prevented from the affects of their crimes.

They fear prison, despite a prison system which is creaking at the seams.

Sort out the Border Agency and get some of the incoming problem children out of the country.

Sort out the Ambulance Service, too much time is spent triaging, due to the wholesale collapse of the AS in some areas.

Sort out Social Services who just duck the issues time and again.

Sort out the politicians who repeatedly tell lies to get headlines and then do nothing.

You are shooting at the wrong targets.

This is just the view from someone outside the system who is not and never has been a UK police officer.