When are the police obliged to come out?
Discussion
In terms of of what we HAVE to do, i.e by law, the answer is to deal with those arrested in accordance with PACE. If we fail to do that, we could be sued.
There is no lawful requirement on the Police to patrol the streets or respond to calls, no matter how serious or life threatening they may be. Of course, this is in theory - it goes without saying that the Police will respond to life threatening jobs ASAP.
There is no lawful requirement on the Police to patrol the streets or respond to calls, no matter how serious or life threatening they may be. Of course, this is in theory - it goes without saying that the Police will respond to life threatening jobs ASAP.
Surely if the gov't and police top brass say that there's no "requirement" to respond to anything, there should be no "requirement" on us to pay the police funding element of our council tax. Bit like the Beeb and the licence fee - guaranteed funding breeds contempt for the 'client'.
turbobloke said:
Surely if the gov't and police top brass say that there's no "requirement" to respond to anything, there should be no "requirement" on us to pay the police funding element of our council tax. Bit like the Beeb and the licence fee - guaranteed funding breeds contempt for the 'client'.
Good point Turbobloke, The biggest increase in MY council tax is: "The Police". And for what? They don't even come out for burglaries, just a crime number for your insurance. It's time that they also "Got Real" like the rest of us and worked for half of what they're worth for twice the work.
Don't mean that really, (MMmmh! yes I do) They should remember those miners that they beat up, sprayed with CS gas, ran down with horses and killed, all lawfully of course! Just:"Obeying orders".
The miners fought for the standards that the police benefited from. Now, they're gone, are the police going to fight now then? For their "status"?
Pah!! Respect? you gotta be joking! Respect is earned not Demanded!
Thought this could cause a raised eyebrow or two! I was simply making the point there is no LAW that says how a Police Service must operate. It is left to the Chief Officers discretion how Officers are deployed operationally. Whereas the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is a law, and it places obligations on those who use it.
Maybe there should be a law? What we have are national and foce objectives/targets, e.g. reducing burglary or whatever. If a Police Service does a rubbish job, a whole host of things can happen, which are mostly too boring to go into, but suffice to say if a Chief Officer wishes to keep their job, it goes without saying they need to provide a proper service.
Maybe there should be a law? What we have are national and foce objectives/targets, e.g. reducing burglary or whatever. If a Police Service does a rubbish job, a whole host of things can happen, which are mostly too boring to go into, but suffice to say if a Chief Officer wishes to keep their job, it goes without saying they need to provide a proper service.
How about this for a radical idea:
Results based policing. We remove all funding for the police and they are paid to solve crimes. If it don't get solved, they don't get paid.
That would certainly put form filling lower down the agenda
Why should we pay for something that in a lot of cases we are no longer receiving?
Results based policing. We remove all funding for the police and they are paid to solve crimes. If it don't get solved, they don't get paid.
That would certainly put form filling lower down the agenda
Why should we pay for something that in a lot of cases we are no longer receiving?
BliarOut said:
How about this for a radical idea:
Results based policing. We remove all funding for the police and they are paid to solve crimes. If it don't get solved, they don't get paid.
That would certainly put form filling lower down the agenda
Why should we pay for something that in a lot of cases we are no longer receiving?
I suspect that if this was the case we'd see a massive increase in the number of "voluntary" confession made while under questioning
I quite like the idea of results based Policing. Only problem is all the areas of Policework that aren't about results or solving crime. By way of example: The Pompey/Saints match yesterday - approx. 400 Officer on duty. Only a proportion is paid by the clubs. No trouble yesterday, no arrests made. No "crime" to solve. Who pays? Or do we just let Pompey fans smash the crap out of city centre, run riot and cost the city hundreds of thousands of pounds?
Sudden deaths? Police act on behalf of the Coroner in arranging removal of the deceased etc... What would we say the greiving pensioner? "Sorry love, you'll have to sort it out yourself."
Sudden deaths? Police act on behalf of the Coroner in arranging removal of the deceased etc... What would we say the greiving pensioner? "Sorry love, you'll have to sort it out yourself."
I can see that there would be certain areas of policing that have to be paid for out of the public purse. But, I think there could be mileage in it to some degree. Insurance companies would probably jump at the idea as it would potentially save them money.
The public would jump at the idea as they would be more likely see a result. We wouldn't feel that we are paying for a service that, for whatever reason we don't perceive we are getting. The officers might even like it, as they could get on with doing what they originally joined the force for, rather than filling in Tony's useless forms.
I'm not saying it's the answer, but it could certainly drive policing in the direction many of us would like it to go.
The public would jump at the idea as they would be more likely see a result. We wouldn't feel that we are paying for a service that, for whatever reason we don't perceive we are getting. The officers might even like it, as they could get on with doing what they originally joined the force for, rather than filling in Tony's useless forms.
I'm not saying it's the answer, but it could certainly drive policing in the direction many of us would like it to go.
hedders said:Their jobs are necessary to continually provide BLiar with 'evidence' that his policies are working. Now some might say that 'cooking the books' WRT the crime figures is little removed from 'fitting-up' a suspect and that PACE and other reforms have given senior officers another outlet for their skills.
"it goes without saying they need to provide a proper service.
But, what IS a proper service?
Most would agree that we don't have a proper service now, so why are they keeping their jobs?
They are also need to be retained so as to send out letters apologising to victims for their force's failure to provide "the service expected" ... although I suspect these are increasingly automatically produced and 'signed' using a modification of the system Brunsturmfurher used to issue 'witness statements'.
Streaky
MEMSDesign said:
There is a tip 1/2 mile from me so I would gladly take my own rubbish away and save my self £30 a week.
Would this be the privately run tip, that receives no funding from local authority, or the one that your council tax pays for?
Well spotted that man
I realised that after i typed it and was wondering if anyone would pull me up on it! Yes, I believe my council tax pay for it...
xxplod said:I gather that in London at the moment this proper service involves spending £1 million on advisors and consultants from other organisations, relating to gay and lesbian issues. BLiar (No. 10) could be expected to come up with claptrap like this, but then Blair (BiB) has to implement it to give a 'proper service' dammit
...suffice to say if a Chief Officer wishes to keep their job, it goes without saying they need to provide a proper service.
We need to take the definition of 'proper service' - regarding the police - away from politicians.
parrot of doom said:
With regard to burglary and car crime, its a minority doing it.
Get their fingerprints, footprints, MO, whatever you can, investigate every single instance, get the culprits responsible, and hey presto massive reduction in the above crimes.
Exactly, when my car was broken into, the parcel shelf in the boot had been moved. It was smooth and shiny and I could see finger-prints on it. The police refused to attend as there was "currently a spate of this sort of crime and nothing we can do". What sort of ridiculous logic is that?
I later received a letter stating that the case was being closed as there was insufficient evidence to continue.
six months later, same car, parked in same area, same thing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff