University degree required to join the police
Discussion
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
The trust issue was covered extensively in another thread, so why do you keep going back to it?
Because that was what was under discussion, and was originally your discussion until you decided to make-up you were talking about something else. V8 Fettler said:
In many ways, support is more important than trust, I'm highlighting the differences between the two.
La Liga said:
Who are you debating the differences and overlap between trust and support with? It's must be some made-up person because no-one is debating it with you or raising counter-points about the differences / overlap. It'd a bit odd to keep debating points that no-one else is.
V8 Fettler said:
I've dealt with most if not all of the points you've raised, even the garbled ones, although I have used a broad brush on occasion.
"Broad brush" i.e. avoided specific questions. V8 Fettler said:
Joe Public takes to the streets to support the NHS, can't say I've seen similar public support for the police.
Does that mean the police aren't supported / sufficiently supported? You’ve not even been clear on this point – ‘broad brush’, I expect. What are you saying? The police aren’t sufficiently supported, or not as much as the NHS? If it's simplistic volume, is Twitter not supported because Facebook is more popular? V8 Fettler said:
Varying expenditure on foreign aid has little direct effect on the day-to-day lives of most British people, varying expenditure on the NHS certainly does.
So there isn't a simplistic link between funding and support? V8 Fettler said:
The current Tory admin is not stupid, unlike many of the Opposition party; if there is a terrorist outrage in the UK following continued cuts in the police budget then the Tories would be under substantial pressure from the public. In my experience, most of the general public want to see an increased visible presence by police following a terrorist outrage, the Tories have ensured that they cannot be accused of continuing to cut the police budget in such a scenario.
You’ve basically written that the public support not being blown up and support those who can stop that occurring, hence the government's decision. Finally, a little consistency.
V8 Fettler said:
If the risk of terrorist outrage in the UK is no higher following the Paris attacks then why wheel out Special Forces onto British streets? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-i...
Haven't you answered your own question in bold above? You've managed to make and undo a point in one paragraph then the following. It's like express inconsistency as the thread goes on. We're talking about not cutting general police budgets 10-20% over years (most of which will not go towards CT work), not just over a few days where the threat may be increased. You're mixing time frames up to make a point. Why couldn't they have merely ring-fenced CT funding and increase it (as they apparently are by 30%).
You present this government as ones whom 'do the right thing' when it comes to austerity, but rely on them being irrationally populist when it comes to this specific stand of funding for a specific reason.
V8 Fettler said:
Regarding accuracy of opinion poles, see previous thread re: trust and reference to expert reports.
So are you saying the original one was wrong? You don't like specifics, do you? Keeping it vague leaves room for manoeuvre as it suits. Although you did write this early in the thread suggesting that because they were voted in they were trusted, implying the data was wrong. That was before you pretended you were talking about something else, mind. V8 Fettler said:
If the general public generally distrusted Tory politicians to the extent you portray then why vote them in? Again.
The discussion has moved on to the importance of support, and yet you keep rambling on about trust, although I think we all recognise that the two are linked.
Broad brush generates clarity, avoids going round in circles and provides broad brush solutions. There is a risk that - if bogged down in trivial minutiae - you never reach the end.
Meaningful support for the police has to be financial support. Do you believe that there is sufficient financial support for the police?
Twitter? Facebook? How are these relevant?
There isn't a simplistic link between support and funding for foreign aid. There is a broad brush link between meaningful support for the police and funding.
The general public perceive and support increased visible and covert additional police/military on the streets as responding to the terrorist threat. There's another discussion to be had about the effectiveness of these additional personnel, you appear to be suggesting that they are ineffective. Another thread perhaps.
The current Tory government will continue to enforce austerity (with a broad brush) until either the economy picks up substantially or they are backed into an impossible position. A terrorist outrage in the UK in a climate of budget cuts for police would be an impossible position for the Tories. Cameron in particular appears to have learnt the art of avoiding the impossible position, see current manoeuvring re: possible Commons vote on bombing ISIS in Syria
Once again, you're missing the point that governments can be voted in irrespective of levels of trust.
Edit: foreign aid
Edited by V8 Fettler on Sunday 29th November 08:30
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
Humpty Dumpty? You're flailing.
Do you not understand the reference? It is hardly obscure.But you are right, insofar as trying to get you to admit your understanding of the democratic process in this country is seriously flawed: I am wasting my time. However, to let you post weird and wonderful interpretations, and also you protestations that people trust MPs might indicate that I support your PoV. And in any case, it is hardly mind-stretching.
I wonder, would you like me to post references?
You're trying to get me to "admit" to something?! Am I supposed to be guilty of something that I should admit to?
Please feel free to post no more than one concise, broad brush reference. Maximum one hundred words if possible.
Devil2575 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Regarding accuracy of opinion poles, see previous thread re: trust and reference to expert reports.
It is possible that you now understand the relative importance of support over trust.
Trust and support are two completely different concepts and one can't be deemed more important than the other. It is possible that you now understand the relative importance of support over trust.
Opinion poles can be accurate if they are carried out appropriately.
With regards to forecasting the results of elections, opinion polles are frequently flawed; poles held in the run-up to the last general election being a prime example.
V8 Fettler said:
You're trying to get me to "admit" to something?! Am I supposed to be guilty of something that I should admit to?
You have no understanding of the democratic system in this country. You make weird and unsupported generalisations. You base your arguments on these wonderful leaps of imagination. This country did not have a democratic basis for government until at least 1918 and, in many people's opinion, 1928.Since then it has been the norm for people to vote for parties. The results over post war times at least support this. So basing your argument on the incorrect assumption that people vote for individual MPs is a nonsense.
With a two party state, a willingness to vote for a particular party cannot be used as proof of trust or support for a particular party.
It is clear from all the data that the majority of the public support and trust the police. It is only a minority who support or trust mps. All your personal attacks cannot alter this.
And admit does not necessarily mean someone is guilty of something.
surveyor_101 said:
I have always liked the fact that some people with life experience like ex forces and non academics could join the service by passing the pir.
My local force had a policy at one point excluding white males and they seem to want people with degrees.what it has lead to is much more women joining the service which to start with was a good thing but it has meant now they seem to have a lack of male officers and allot of very small 4'5 women some of whom sound never of joined the police and should probably be nursery nurses. I have known a number if situations were some physical presence and some muscle was needed and where a woman who is 20 with very little life experience has not managed the situation well. I remember a very difficult old lady harbouring her husband who was wanted for assault. She said to me she was scared of this lady and couldn't get into the house to find the wanted man.
There are situations were these women are a distinct advantage but there are times when you need a balance service with a good mixture of sexs and people with different skills for different walks of life. You don't need a degree in English lit to talk people from doing something silly.
The ability to start from the bottom and work your way up is something that has come under attack from various governments, with the suggestion that direct entry to senior ranks is the better option. My local force had a policy at one point excluding white males and they seem to want people with degrees.what it has lead to is much more women joining the service which to start with was a good thing but it has meant now they seem to have a lack of male officers and allot of very small 4'5 women some of whom sound never of joined the police and should probably be nursery nurses. I have known a number if situations were some physical presence and some muscle was needed and where a woman who is 20 with very little life experience has not managed the situation well. I remember a very difficult old lady harbouring her husband who was wanted for assault. She said to me she was scared of this lady and couldn't get into the house to find the wanted man.
There are situations were these women are a distinct advantage but there are times when you need a balance service with a good mixture of sexs and people with different skills for different walks of life. You don't need a degree in English lit to talk people from doing something silly.
There is the accelerated promotion system of course so one wonders what the justification for the alternative is. If a person comes in from the retail trade then one would assume he or she would have a period of instruction as to methods of various departments so no time saved.
Balance is at the basis of policing. I remember a group of mps suggesting that women in violent situations would not be attacked by these nasty people because everyone has certain morals. Ah! Sweet.
A third of my shift in Brighton, a supposedly violent town, was female and they were just like people.
We had one incident where a very bright female PC was pushed onto the bonnet of her car and punched, but that was the only incident in two years.
I admit to not knowing what the best answer is, but blocking white males from joining is an affront to everything the police should stand for. At a time when the police can't attract black recruits, upping the pir to degree level is rather silly. It will reduce the catchment.
I do know one answer: the government, and especially the home sec, should not micromanage.
Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 29th November 09:38
There was an interview on one of the breakfast TV programmes (Friday?)where reducing police numbers was under discussion. Pro was one of Bliars former spin doctors advisers, anti was a Chief Constable.
The spin doctor stuck to the point that we don't need more police officers as crime has been falling at a time when police numbers have been falling.
To follow his logic it would appear that we have the perfect solution. Do away with the police altogether and there will be no crime.
Meanwhile, back in the real world.........
ETA Nick Gargan was a graduate entry.
The spin doctor stuck to the point that we don't need more police officers as crime has been falling at a time when police numbers have been falling.
To follow his logic it would appear that we have the perfect solution. Do away with the police altogether and there will be no crime.
Meanwhile, back in the real world.........
ETA Nick Gargan was a graduate entry.
paintman said:
There was an interview on one of the breakfast TV programmes (Friday?)where reducing police numbers was under discussion. Pro was one of Bliars former spin doctors advisers, anti was a Chief Constable.
The spin doctor stuck to the point that we don't need more police officers as crime has been falling at a time when police numbers have been falling.
To follow his logic it would appear that we have the perfect solution. Do away with the police altogether and there will be no crime.
Meanwhile, back in the real world.........
ETA Nick Gargan was a graduate entry.
This is infuriating. The idea that simple crime totals can be used to justify cuts is not so much nonsensical as a downright lie. The spin doctor stuck to the point that we don't need more police officers as crime has been falling at a time when police numbers have been falling.
To follow his logic it would appear that we have the perfect solution. Do away with the police altogether and there will be no crime.
Meanwhile, back in the real world.........
ETA Nick Gargan was a graduate entry.
There has been a significant drop in car crime. The prime cause of this in in doubt but many suggest better security built into cars and fewer young people. Whatever, the theft of a car was not labour intensive and took up little time of a pc. Rape has increased. The reason for this again is in dispute. Some suggest that victims are more willing to come forward and report the offences. It matters not.
A rape takes up considerable man hours.
Whilst those who suggest that crime rates have fallen dramatically normally go back to the 1990s for their base, the recording methods have changed significantly since then and in reality they should be taken from the last change, in the early days of the last government. The stats cannot be compared when different recording methods are used, especially when those who come up with the new methods want the stats to justify slashing of the police budget.
Lies, damned lies and the rubbish that comes out of the mouths of politicians.
Derek Smith said:
blocking white males from joining is an affront to everything the police should stand for. At a time when the police can't attract black recruits, upping the pir to degree level is rather silly. It will reduce the catchment.
I do know one answer: the government, and especially the home sec, should not micromanage.
This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with Derek.I do know one answer: the government, and especially the home sec, should not micromanage.
V8 Fettler said:
The discussion has moved on to the importance of support, and yet you keep rambling on about trust, although I think we all recognise that the two are linked.
Only when you decided to make-up you were talking about that out of the blue when no one else was discussing it. V8 Fettler said:
Broad brush generates clarity
Or avoids having to answer questions you don't want to. V8 Fettler said:
Meaningful support for the police has to be financial support. Do you believe that there is sufficient financial support for the police?
It depends what you want to do with them. Prisons are nearly always at capacity. V8 Fettler said:
Twitter? Facebook? How are these relevant?
They show how simplistic judgements of volume don't = a lack of support you imply. V8 Fettler said:
There isn't a simplistic link between support and funding for foreign aid.
There isn't to any government department. You just pretend there is when it suits. V8 Fettler said:
The general public perceive and support increased visible and covert additional police/military on the streets as responding to the terrorist threat.
Which is a temporary measure in response to an incident within the context of the current funding. It isn't sustainable nor anything to do with general funding over the next several years. Even if there were further cuts the Met could still produce short-term increased visibility. V8 Fettler said:
A terrorist outrage in the UK in a climate of budget cuts for police would be an impossible position for the Tories.
You presenting opinion as fact which conveniently side-steps your earlier links between funding and support. No funding cuts for the NHS = support, no funding cuts for the police = because of a short-term foreign terrorist incident. You won't consider anything else because it doesn't suit, and break the link when it suits. You assign the cause / effect to one terrorist incident as if you have some special insight as to why the decision was made, when really there could be, and likely are, so many different factors and reasons as to why the decision was made.
You have no idea if the government would have been fine to ring-fence CT funding, like they proposed, and still be fine with perception. It was an "impossible position", rubbish.
V8 Fettler said:
Once again, you're missing the point that governments can be voted in irrespective of levels of trust.
Posts early in the thread: La Liga said:
Do people need to trust specific politicians to vote for a political party?
La Liga said:
The confusion over politician vs party may belong to you given the unfounded assumption you continue to make that individual politicians need to be trusted for their party to be voted for. It's quite possible people don't trust individual politicians but are still quite happy to vote in a party
Derek Smith said:
Lies, damned lies and the rubbish that comes out of the mouths of politicians.
The problem is all the non-crime the Home Sec made that stupid remark about not wanting the police to deal with. I was reviewing a few things from last night as demand was very high and response times slower etc. The reason was an exceptional-level of mental health incidents e.g. missing people / suicidal people, high-risk people absconding. It took out a large number of resources. None of it is measured with simplistic data but it's been a big growing area of demand for sometime, along with many other non-crime areas of demand. I expect you know all of this, but it isn't getting better.
surveyor_101 said:
I have always liked the fact that some people with life experience like ex forces and non academics could join the service by passing the pir.
My local force had a policy at one point excluding white males and they seem to want people with degrees.what it has lead to is much more women joining the service which to start with was a good thing but it has meant now they seem to have a lack of male officers and allot of very small 4'5 women some of whom sound never of joined the police and should probably be nursery nurses. I have known a number if situations were some physical presence and some muscle was needed and where a woman who is 20 with very little life experience has not managed the situation well. I remember a very difficult old lady harbouring her husband who was wanted for assault. She said to me she was scared of this lady and couldn't get into the house to find the wanted man.
There are situations were these women are a distinct advantage but there are times when you need a balance service with a good mixture of sexs and people with different skills for different walks of life. You don't need a degree in English lit to talk people from doing something silly.
Just to balance this, I know quite a few big, burly male officers who are bloody useless too. The description "Body of a horse, brain of a chicken springs to mind"!My local force had a policy at one point excluding white males and they seem to want people with degrees.what it has lead to is much more women joining the service which to start with was a good thing but it has meant now they seem to have a lack of male officers and allot of very small 4'5 women some of whom sound never of joined the police and should probably be nursery nurses. I have known a number if situations were some physical presence and some muscle was needed and where a woman who is 20 with very little life experience has not managed the situation well. I remember a very difficult old lady harbouring her husband who was wanted for assault. She said to me she was scared of this lady and couldn't get into the house to find the wanted man.
There are situations were these women are a distinct advantage but there are times when you need a balance service with a good mixture of sexs and people with different skills for different walks of life. You don't need a degree in English lit to talk people from doing something silly.
La Liga said:
I was reviewing a few things from last night as demand was very high and response times slower etc. The reason was an exceptional-level of mental health incidents e.g. missing people / suicidal people, high-risk people absconding. It took out a large number of resources. None of it is measured with simplistic data but it's been a big growing area of demand for sometime, along with many other non-crime areas of demand. I expect you know all of this, but it isn't getting better.
You are making this up. The problem is over. Police no longer deals with matters which are not their responsibility. I was told this in the 1990s. Mental health expecially was to be covered by a dedicated NHS resource, 24/7, all over England/Wales. I was also told that the bureaucracy would be ending in a couple of years. It must have happened as it was promised by a Home Sec.If you can't manage when the non-police jobs are removed, there's little paperwork and with all these extra police on the streets (current HomSec) then you are obviously at fault.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
The discussion has moved on to the importance of support, and yet you keep rambling on about trust, although I think we all recognise that the two are linked.
Only when you decided to make-up you were talking about that out of the blue when no one else was discussing it. V8 Fettler said:
Broad brush generates clarity
Or avoids having to answer questions you don't want to. V8 Fettler said:
Meaningful support for the police has to be financial support. Do you believe that there is sufficient financial support for the police?
It depends what you want to do with them. Prisons are nearly always at capacity. V8 Fettler said:
Twitter? Facebook? How are these relevant?
They show how simplistic judgements of volume don't = a lack of support you imply. V8 Fettler said:
There isn't a simplistic link between support and funding for foreign aid.
There isn't to any government department. You just pretend there is when it suits. V8 Fettler said:
The general public perceive and support increased visible and covert additional police/military on the streets as responding to the terrorist threat.
Which is a temporary measure in response to an incident within the context of the current funding. It isn't sustainable nor anything to do with general funding over the next several years. Even if there were further cuts the Met could still produce short-term increased visibility. V8 Fettler said:
A terrorist outrage in the UK in a climate of budget cuts for police would be an impossible position for the Tories.
You presenting opinion as fact which conveniently side-steps your earlier links between funding and support. No funding cuts for the NHS = support, no funding cuts for the police = because of a short-term foreign terrorist incident. You won't consider anything else because it doesn't suit, and break the link when it suits. You assign the cause / effect to one terrorist incident as if you have some special insight as to why the decision was made, when really there could be, and likely are, so many different factors and reasons as to why the decision was made.
You have no idea if the government would have been fine to ring-fence CT funding, like they proposed, and still be fine with perception. It was an "impossible position", rubbish.
V8 Fettler said:
Once again, you're missing the point that governments can be voted in irrespective of levels of trust.
Posts early in the thread: La Liga said:
Do people need to trust specific politicians to vote for a political party?
La Liga said:
The confusion over politician vs party may belong to you given the unfounded assumption you continue to make that individual politicians need to be trusted for their party to be voted for. It's quite possible people don't trust individual politicians but are still quite happy to vote in a party
Derek Smith said:
Lies, damned lies and the rubbish that comes out of the mouths of politicians.
The problem is all the non-crime the Home Sec made that stupid remark about not wanting the police to deal with. I was reviewing a few things from last night as demand was very high and response times slower etc. The reason was an exceptional-level of mental health incidents e.g. missing people / suicidal people, high-risk people absconding. It took out a large number of resources. None of it is measured with simplistic data but it's been a big growing area of demand for sometime, along with many other non-crime areas of demand. I expect you know all of this, but it isn't getting better.
You've avoided my question re: your view on the sufficiency of funding for the police. A broad brush answer will be fine.
Support or lack or support for Twitter or Facebook makes no meaningful difference to the lives of most people. Support or lack of support for the police can make a lot of difference to a lot of people's lives, hence Twitter/Facebook analogy is irrelevant to this thread.
You can't equate the foreign aid budget to the police budget; the former is primarily driven by historical, international trade and philanthropic reasons, none of which apply to the police budget. You can take a broad brush view on the results of changes to various budgets within HMG by looking at the extremes: a minimal budget for foreign aid would make very little difference to most of the British public, a minimal budget for the police would be disastrous for the British public.
If the perception of the terrorist threat remains at the same level as currently then the visibility of police/military will remain higher. If the perception of the terrorist threat drops then I would expect the Tories to return to cutting the police budget, but perhaps not in this current parliament.
As I recall, you introduced the reference to the recent protection of police budgets to this thread, I've replied to that. What else was I supposed to consider?
There may well be several reasons for the protection of police budgets, but logically the primary reason is the increased threat of terrorism http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34875077
BBC said that senior police officer said:
Police cuts could "reduce very significantly" the UK's ability to respond to a Paris-style attack
In the light of such comments (and similar) it would be an impossible situation for the Tories if cuts were continued and there was a terrorist outrage in the UK. Again, you need to consider that people can vote irrespective of trust.
The issue of police resource being used to deal with mental health incidents that could be dealt with in a measured way by other public sector organisations certainly needs to be addressed. It's yet another example of where insular public sector organisations in their bunkers fail to co-operate with each other at a high level.
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're trying to get me to "admit" to something?! Am I supposed to be guilty of something that I should admit to?
You have no understanding of the democratic system in this country. You make weird and unsupported generalisations. You base your arguments on these wonderful leaps of imagination. This country did not have a democratic basis for government until at least 1918 and, in many people's opinion, 1928.Since then it has been the norm for people to vote for parties. The results over post war times at least support this. So basing your argument on the incorrect assumption that people vote for individual MPs is a nonsense.
With a two party state, a willingness to vote for a particular party cannot be used as proof of trust or support for a particular party.
It is clear from all the data that the majority of the public support and trust the police. It is only a minority who support or trust mps. All your personal attacks cannot alter this.
And admit does not necessarily mean someone is guilty of something.
You've referred to changes in the electoral system over the years, none of which have altered the principle that the system is designed and structured on the basis that a vote is a vote for an individual, not a party.
People can signify their support for a candidate at a general election by voting for that candidate irrespective of levels of trust. They can vote for a candidate for whatever reason they choose; perhaps the candidate's name attracts their attention, perhaps he or she offers some fine facial topiary, perhaps he or she is a member of a particular political party. The reasoning behind the vote is irrelevant to the fact that it is the individual person who is elected to a particular seat; it is not the party that is elected to a particular seat. Again, this is demonstrated by the fact that a by-election is not required if an MP crosses the House to another party; that's because the system is designed and structured so that the MP is elected as an individual rather than as a representative of a party.
Personal attacks? I admit that I didn't realise you were so sensitive.
Rovinghawk said:
Devil2575 said:
An example of one flawed opinion pole is not evidence that all opinion poles are flawed.
No, but it's evidence that polls CAN be flawed.That's hardly a revelation is it.
Gary Glitter is evidence that pop stars can be paedophiles. Does that make it likely that all of them are?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff