A Royal Commission into the police
Discussion
Perhaps the Commission should roll in to their remit the drugs legislation, wiping away a portion of the problem, depriving criminals of money and increasing revenue to the treasury to boot. Perhaps the commission could also include what we do with offenders, particularly the young, as at the moment prison/detention is just a finishing school for more hardened criminality and offers little chance for reform. Perhaps the Commission could also look at dealing with the glut of nonsense generated by facebook etc and have that dealt with separately to the core policing that actually affects people in reality instead of stuff in peoples minds. The Commission could also look at the metrics involved in judging performance and their actual effectiveness - once a metric is introduced it is worked to and unfortunately this means figures will be fudged and shoplifters get the same priority as burglary. Perhaps the Commission could also start to draw financial investment lines around cases that cost millions but are going nowhere and rationalise pursuit petty cases that cost the judicial system as a whole millions but are in essence victimless (dogs doing Nazi salutes on youtube etc).
If you want to change it you need to be part of it.
Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
carinaman said:
If you want to change it you need to be part of it.
Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
The group is led by Kevin Moore, ex chief super. He's a tenacious bugger. I've been involved in incidents he was SIO for and he goes at things at a run. Committed just doesn't do him justice. He's seen a couple of MPs, and there's a suggestion the matter will be brought up with the HomSec by MPs.Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
carinaman said:
If you want to change it you need to be part of it.
Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
Because all mike penning will say is "crime is down, police reform is working" The conservatives standard response to any criticism of policing.Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
Faz50 said:
V8 Fettler said:
The poilce should maintain law and order, they should also be responsible for keeping the peace.
The RC should start with Peel's principles.
Complete transparancy on costs, so that we can see precisely where the tax money goes (this should apply to all public sector organisations)
No increases in tax rates though, the public sector get enough of my hard-earned income as it is.
You forgot protect life and that’s the most important one. Sadly it’s also one of the reasons that forces are on their knees because as previously mentioned they’re the catchall for other failing services. The government likes it this way as only the police seem to be failing compared to other public services that are just managing. The RC should start with Peel's principles.
Complete transparancy on costs, so that we can see precisely where the tax money goes (this should apply to all public sector organisations)
No increases in tax rates though, the public sector get enough of my hard-earned income as it is.
No ambulance - send police.
No fire service - send police.
No social services - send police.
No mental health workers - send police.
No Dr for sectioning - send police.
None of that is police work on what you list but if you throw on protect life then it becomes core work due to lack of resources in other services and counts for at least 2/3 in our area. So much so that the crimes where there is no risk for example, coming home to find you’ve been burgled, damage to vehicle, criminal damage, theft, robberies not ongoing don’t even go to the response incident job list.
Facebook and other social media disputes have exploded as they’re assessed under threat, harm and risk and usually contain a threat mostly because until they’ve sent an officer they have no real idea what that threat is. No one wants to tell them to do one and get a life because when one of them follows through with the Jeremy Kyle based threat then that officer is screwed.
Genuinely if you didn’t have officers spending time on online rubbish, NHS work, social services or mental health they we would have the police force we want. That would mean the cost of all other services going up but you would have proactive patrols day and night with officers doing what they joined up to do.
Not sit with Chardonnay who’s crying her eyes out because she called a bigger girl names on Facebook and now she’s received death threats via Twitter from Mercedes and her partner Kade. Nine times out of ten all of the above are unemployed and are still in their pj’s at 2 in the afternoon. They make up a huge amount of this type of work because you end up back there at 2am to section Kade after he’s gone on a mad one with beer and coke and is making threats to slit his own throat.
Edited by Faz50 on Sunday 23 September 10:10
Edited by Faz50 on Sunday 23 September 10:11
ED209 said:
carinaman said:
If you want to change it you need to be part of it.
Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
Because all mike penning will say is "crime is down, police reform is working" The conservatives standard response to any criticism of policing.Is Javid any different from any other MP?
Has the fall out from the Windrush 'You're guilty until you can prove otherwise' deportations, at least the Home Office didn't offer rewards to citizens fingering people who didn't have the correct documentation, confirmed that the Home Office is dysfunctional and gives the law about as much respect as any common or garden scrote?
When the Home Office is out of control petitioning the Home Secretary could be a urinating into the wind displacement activity.
Perhaps this group of concerned former officers should try to arrange a meeting with Mike Penning MP and perhaps one of the questions should be 'How do we fix it for public and the well being of our Country?'?
I think Maggie Oliver and John Wedger are two decent former police officers that are perhaps pretty fed up with the state of British policing and its failures to protect the vulnerable in our communities.
I'm no fan of Javid or my Tory MP but at the moment I think Penning may have some integrity and spine. He was formerly a Soldier and a Fireman.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/881325/Police-As...
Derek Smith said:
I've met a few German police officers and they all seemed more militaristic in organisation. This goes for response I'm told. They are well funded as well. An area the size in population of, say, the equivalent of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hants would have a number of helicopters.
And yet, if you look at US police forces, they are very militaristic in both human resources and equipment. They actively recruit ex-service personnel and don't teach them the "service and people skills" that our officers use to defuse situations. They tend to escalate to screaming and shooting far too quickly. We don't need that. I'm sure there's lots we could learn from lots of other forces/services around the world, but would a Royal Commission have the power to force a group of empire-building chief constables whose main concern is starting a project which will make them look good for their next role (whether it actually comes to fruition or works if and when it does being a minor, secondary concern usually) to actually change their forces for the better by following its findings? Pothole said:
And yet, if you look at US police forces, they are very militaristic in both human resources and equipment. They actively recruit ex-service personnel and don't teach them the "service and people skills" that our officers use to defuse situations. They tend to escalate to screaming and shooting far too quickly. We don't need that. I'm sure there's lots we could learn from lots of other forces/services around the world, but would a Royal Commission have the power to force a group of empire-building chief constables whose main concern is starting a project which will make them look good for their next role (whether it actually comes to fruition or works if and when it does being a minor, secondary concern usually) to actually change their forces for the better by following its findings?
I would not, for one moment, suggest the American system for this country. There are many 'police' forces. Some of them are highly trained at what they do. But I would agree that most don't seem to be. I've met a few, about half a dozen or so, serving officers in various police forces and individually they seemed on top of their game. But then, theses were the ones sent abroad so one might assume they were seen as of decent quality.
I've worked with three chief constables and none fit the description you give. All seemed to want to do a good job.
I can't see anything wrong with recruiting ex military, although they shouldn't be restricted to them alone of course. I'd say my experience is that a higher proportion turn out to be excellent officers than general recruits. Mind you, one should avoid those who remind you that they were ex-army every conversation as if it is some award.
We have some duff chief constables. We have some who are only after what's good for them, but in general they seem a dedicated, if dull, lot.
Derek Smith said:
I think you and I are arguing on the same side. If the MP is not fit for purpose, as you say, then we should know why first of all and then have it rectified.
One problem for the MP is that they too have suffered from funding cuts, but their workload has increased dramatically. They have a dual role, that of general policing and what should be described as home security, or actions against terrorism. Someone gets stabbed in the HoC and the solution is to increase armed patrols. Where do these officers come from?
More to the point, at least from a pov of a member of the policed public, you, the priorities are wrong.
You complain that the police did not investigate:
1/ A hit and run RTA.
2/ Racial abuse,
3/ Burglary (attended but stated no investigation)
4/ DNA not take from an assault
5/ CCTV of a burglar
6/ Robbery in the street, location of offender known
7/ Hit and run damage only RTA
8/ Drugs dealt on the street
9/ Criminal damage, statement taken.
Apart from 2/ above, they have a lot on common.
The police have had the luxury in the past of investigating offences where there is no/little likelihood of an arrest/charge.
Further, they have also investigated offences where there is minimal damage, no injury or loss. If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked.
There are other criteria that have to be considered. Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness. This has been consistent for decades.
Drugs? The police will not stop drug dealing. That is the one thing that has been made clear since the ‘war’ started.
The police will use a form of tick-box system to assess whether further investigation is worthwhile. That has always been true to an extent. Official ‘sleeving’ has gone on since I was a probationer, the difference being that the victim was generally told lies. You, however, seem to have been dealt with honestly.
That’s what we have now. Is it right? Surely that’s the job of an RC.
I’ve done the ‘liaising with the local community to assess needs’ bit and I’m reliably informed that little has changed. The public wants: high visibility uniform patrols, dog mess offenders dealt with, cyclists on the footway prosecuted. A PC wandering the streets is very useful for intelligence, but is expensive. It was a great place to locate a tactical reserve, but the idea of a reserve nowadays is fantasy.
I’m surprised that 2/, a ‘hate crime’, was not followed up, even just as a show. I would have been in my force, but then there would appear to be little chance of an arrest, so which force is being more honest?
The remit of the police is too large. Either increase boots or decrease demand. That’s for the RC to decide.
I was told by an aged copper, who'd retired before I joined, that the service was going to the dogs because we didn't do things the old way. If it didn't scare the horses, ie if there was no problem from it, then it used to be sleeved. Welcome to the old days.
Derek, One problem for the MP is that they too have suffered from funding cuts, but their workload has increased dramatically. They have a dual role, that of general policing and what should be described as home security, or actions against terrorism. Someone gets stabbed in the HoC and the solution is to increase armed patrols. Where do these officers come from?
More to the point, at least from a pov of a member of the policed public, you, the priorities are wrong.
You complain that the police did not investigate:
1/ A hit and run RTA.
2/ Racial abuse,
3/ Burglary (attended but stated no investigation)
4/ DNA not take from an assault
5/ CCTV of a burglar
6/ Robbery in the street, location of offender known
7/ Hit and run damage only RTA
8/ Drugs dealt on the street
9/ Criminal damage, statement taken.
Apart from 2/ above, they have a lot on common.
The police have had the luxury in the past of investigating offences where there is no/little likelihood of an arrest/charge.
Further, they have also investigated offences where there is minimal damage, no injury or loss. If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked.
There are other criteria that have to be considered. Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness. This has been consistent for decades.
Drugs? The police will not stop drug dealing. That is the one thing that has been made clear since the ‘war’ started.
The police will use a form of tick-box system to assess whether further investigation is worthwhile. That has always been true to an extent. Official ‘sleeving’ has gone on since I was a probationer, the difference being that the victim was generally told lies. You, however, seem to have been dealt with honestly.
That’s what we have now. Is it right? Surely that’s the job of an RC.
I’ve done the ‘liaising with the local community to assess needs’ bit and I’m reliably informed that little has changed. The public wants: high visibility uniform patrols, dog mess offenders dealt with, cyclists on the footway prosecuted. A PC wandering the streets is very useful for intelligence, but is expensive. It was a great place to locate a tactical reserve, but the idea of a reserve nowadays is fantasy.
I’m surprised that 2/, a ‘hate crime’, was not followed up, even just as a show. I would have been in my force, but then there would appear to be little chance of an arrest, so which force is being more honest?
The remit of the police is too large. Either increase boots or decrease demand. That’s for the RC to decide.
I was told by an aged copper, who'd retired before I joined, that the service was going to the dogs because we didn't do things the old way. If it didn't scare the horses, ie if there was no problem from it, then it used to be sleeved. Welcome to the old days.
Thanks for your answer. Sensible comment from time-served coppers is (almost)always worth listening to.
Replying in slight haste; I simply don't agree with a number of your assertions. While I understand your comments about what is and is not worth following-up there was nothing done in a number of incidents listed despite there being a very good chance of an arrest.
- Both hit-and-runs were accompanied by a description of the vehicle and a registration number, along with contact details of at least two witnesses. In the second instance the vehicle in question was a sign-written lorry from a local company with offices less than a mile from Limehouse Police Station, which hit seven parked cars.
- "Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness." I'll take your word for it, but in the instance of one of the burglaries there was both clear CCTV footage (from two separate systems owned by two different people) and one of the residents of the house saw the burglar from less than 5 yards away. Two, possibly three means of ID and still not worth following up?
I am also concerned by the tone of your reply, which is a tone similar to that I have heard from other officers; investigating is something that is to be done on purely a financial cost:benefit analysis. This is neatly summed by by your statement "If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked." The absurdity of this beggars belief; a police investigation and an insurance pay-out are completely different things and one should not be in the place of another, and to follow such logic to its inevitable conclusion leads to a number of other questions. It also leaves me wondering where any retribution may takes place, furthering suspicions that retribution is not a popular concept in liberal society.
If the police will not stop drug dealing then who will? And if the answer to that is finger pointing with 'no-one' as the realpolitik answer then is it any wonder that it's rampantly out of control?
Racist abuse / hate crime. The cynic in me says that hate crime against white middle-class people is always always going to score lower on any police priority list than hate crime against other sections of society, particularly in Tower Hamlets, despite a clear description given of two of the people responsible, an accurate time and location and - again - a vehicle registration number and description.
For what it's worth, I've signed the petition.
andy_s said:
Perhaps the Commission should roll in to their remit the drugs legislation, wiping away a portion of the problem, depriving criminals of money and increasing revenue to the treasury to boot.
Its an interesting point - but would it drive that change? Given a more regulated drugs approach would imply taxation, would the problem move to stolen/counterfeit drugs?I think even in a review, only the "mildest" of drugs might possibly be decriminalised?
2Btoo said:
If the police will not stop drug dealing then who will? And if the answer to that is finger pointing with 'no-one' as the realpolitik answer then is it any wonder that it's rampantly out of control?
As I mentioned earlier, legalising/regulating drugs has many upsides; taking a burden off the police and adding to coffers [for coppers 
] - it's a whole subject I know and I'm not intending to derail, but lean times call for pragmatic measures. It seems to me that the Police have fingers in an increasing number of pies so for best efficiency it would seem wise to have a holistic approach as moving aims in one sector will shunt it into another, unintended consequences and all that, but yes, a refocus on core principles for the police so they can deal with what was traditionally their purview seems sensible, if not necessary.
2Btoo said:
Derek,
Thanks for your answer. Sensible comment from time-served coppers is (almost)always worth listening to.
Replying in slight haste; I simply don't agree with a number of your assertions. While I understand your comments about what is and is not worth following-up there was nothing done in a number of incidents listed despite there being a very good chance of an arrest.
- Both hit-and-runs were accompanied by a description of the vehicle and a registration number, along with contact details of at least two witnesses. In the second instance the vehicle in question was a sign-written lorry from a local company with offices less than a mile from Limehouse Police Station, which hit seven parked cars.
- "Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness." I'll take your word for it, but in the instance of one of the burglaries there was both clear CCTV footage (from two separate systems owned by two different people) and one of the residents of the house saw the burglar from less than 5 yards away. Two, possibly three means of ID and still not worth following up? so we have a clear picture of a face. What is your suggested "follow up"? Have you costed that for proportionality?
I am also concerned by the tone of your reply, which is a tone similar to that I have heard from other officers; investigating is something that is to be done on purely a financial cost:benefit analysis. This is neatly summed by by your statement "If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked." The absurdity of this beggars belief; a police investigation and an insurance pay-out are completely different things and one should not be in the place of another, and to follow such logic to its inevitable conclusion leads to a number of other questions. It also leaves me wondering where any retribution may takes place, furthering suspicions that retribution is not a popular concept in liberal society. [b]retribution is the job of the courts and only comes after investigation, charging, trail etc[b]
If the police will not stop drug dealing then who will? And if the answer to that is finger pointing with 'no-one' as the realpolitik answer then is it any wonder that it's rampantly out of control? it is no wonder, no. Again, I'd love to hear your new suggestions, with cost/benefit analysis
Racist abuse / hate crime. The cynic in me says that hate crime against white middle-class people is always always going to score lower on any police priority list than hate crime against other sections of society, particularly in Tower Hamlets, despite a clear description given of two of the people responsible, an accurate time and location and - again - a vehicle registration number and description. you're probably right. see above for offender ID comments
For what it's worth, I've signed the petition.
Thanks for your answer. Sensible comment from time-served coppers is (almost)always worth listening to.
Replying in slight haste; I simply don't agree with a number of your assertions. While I understand your comments about what is and is not worth following-up there was nothing done in a number of incidents listed despite there being a very good chance of an arrest.
- Both hit-and-runs were accompanied by a description of the vehicle and a registration number, along with contact details of at least two witnesses. In the second instance the vehicle in question was a sign-written lorry from a local company with offices less than a mile from Limehouse Police Station, which hit seven parked cars.
- "Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness." I'll take your word for it, but in the instance of one of the burglaries there was both clear CCTV footage (from two separate systems owned by two different people) and one of the residents of the house saw the burglar from less than 5 yards away. Two, possibly three means of ID and still not worth following up? so we have a clear picture of a face. What is your suggested "follow up"? Have you costed that for proportionality?
I am also concerned by the tone of your reply, which is a tone similar to that I have heard from other officers; investigating is something that is to be done on purely a financial cost:benefit analysis. This is neatly summed by by your statement "If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked." The absurdity of this beggars belief; a police investigation and an insurance pay-out are completely different things and one should not be in the place of another, and to follow such logic to its inevitable conclusion leads to a number of other questions. It also leaves me wondering where any retribution may takes place, furthering suspicions that retribution is not a popular concept in liberal society. [b]retribution is the job of the courts and only comes after investigation, charging, trail etc[b]
If the police will not stop drug dealing then who will? And if the answer to that is finger pointing with 'no-one' as the realpolitik answer then is it any wonder that it's rampantly out of control? it is no wonder, no. Again, I'd love to hear your new suggestions, with cost/benefit analysis
Racist abuse / hate crime. The cynic in me says that hate crime against white middle-class people is always always going to score lower on any police priority list than hate crime against other sections of society, particularly in Tower Hamlets, despite a clear description given of two of the people responsible, an accurate time and location and - again - a vehicle registration number and description. you're probably right. see above for offender ID comments
For what it's worth, I've signed the petition.
2Btoo said:
Derek,
Thanks for your answer. Sensible comment from time-served coppers is (almost)always worth listening to.
Replying in slight haste; I simply don't agree with a number of your assertions. While I understand your comments about what is and is not worth following-up there was nothing done in a number of incidents listed despite there being a very good chance of an arrest.
- Both hit-and-runs were accompanied by a description of the vehicle and a registration number, along with contact details of at least two witnesses. In the second instance the vehicle in question was a sign-written lorry from a local company with offices less than a mile from Limehouse Police Station, which hit seven parked cars.
- "Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness." I'll take your word for it, but in the instance of one of the burglaries there was both clear CCTV footage (from two separate systems owned by two different people) and one of the residents of the house saw the burglar from less than 5 yards away. Two, possibly three means of ID and still not worth following up?
I am also concerned by the tone of your reply, which is a tone similar to that I have heard from other officers; investigating is something that is to be done on purely a financial cost:benefit analysis. This is neatly summed by by your statement "If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked." The absurdity of this beggars belief; a police investigation and an insurance pay-out are completely different things and one should not be in the place of another, and to follow such logic to its inevitable conclusion leads to a number of other questions. It also leaves me wondering where any retribution may takes place, furthering suspicions that retribution is not a popular concept in liberal society.
If the police will not stop drug dealing then who will? And if the answer to that is finger pointing with 'no-one' as the realpolitik answer then is it any wonder that it's rampantly out of control?
Racist abuse / hate crime. The cynic in me says that hate crime against white middle-class people is always always going to score lower on any police priority list than hate crime against other sections of society, particularly in Tower Hamlets, despite a clear description given of two of the people responsible, an accurate time and location and - again - a vehicle registration number and description.
For what it's worth, I've signed the petition.
Thanks for signing the petition. It's something that's important to me, despite being retired for some years now.Thanks for your answer. Sensible comment from time-served coppers is (almost)always worth listening to.
Replying in slight haste; I simply don't agree with a number of your assertions. While I understand your comments about what is and is not worth following-up there was nothing done in a number of incidents listed despite there being a very good chance of an arrest.
- Both hit-and-runs were accompanied by a description of the vehicle and a registration number, along with contact details of at least two witnesses. In the second instance the vehicle in question was a sign-written lorry from a local company with offices less than a mile from Limehouse Police Station, which hit seven parked cars.
- "Things like CCTV identification can be extremely difficult to use if it is the only means of ID. It goes the same for a witness." I'll take your word for it, but in the instance of one of the burglaries there was both clear CCTV footage (from two separate systems owned by two different people) and one of the residents of the house saw the burglar from less than 5 yards away. Two, possibly three means of ID and still not worth following up?
I am also concerned by the tone of your reply, which is a tone similar to that I have heard from other officers; investigating is something that is to be done on purely a financial cost:benefit analysis. This is neatly summed by by your statement "If losses are insured, then is the expenditure of an investigation worth while is the question that has to be asked." The absurdity of this beggars belief; a police investigation and an insurance pay-out are completely different things and one should not be in the place of another, and to follow such logic to its inevitable conclusion leads to a number of other questions. It also leaves me wondering where any retribution may takes place, furthering suspicions that retribution is not a popular concept in liberal society.
If the police will not stop drug dealing then who will? And if the answer to that is finger pointing with 'no-one' as the realpolitik answer then is it any wonder that it's rampantly out of control?
Racist abuse / hate crime. The cynic in me says that hate crime against white middle-class people is always always going to score lower on any police priority list than hate crime against other sections of society, particularly in Tower Hamlets, despite a clear description given of two of the people responsible, an accurate time and location and - again - a vehicle registration number and description.
For what it's worth, I've signed the petition.
I think I might have misled you. I didn't mean to suggest that the crimes were not worth following up. What I meant was that the police have had to draw a line. It is different to the one that was current in my day, but even then, there were limits. I would assume, bet in fact, that the police officers are not happy that so much is sleeved nowadays. After all, they weren't happy in my day. I still remember one PC using the term 'two lone females' to try and push a job through.
I can see no argument that a line has to be drawn. It always has been. However, the question is whether it has been drawn in the right place. Are the police performing some functions that could be ignored? The RC would, I would assume, look at this and come to some conclusion. There are no easy answers.
As for the drug dealing; The Misuse of Drugs Act was flawed from the beginning and modifications have often made matters worse. There is overwhelming evidence to support cannabis being either classed as C or not included at all, but the government has decided that playing to their audience is the better option. The police have decided it is all a waste of time. The Act makes it impossible to succeed.
My force had a dreadful record for drugs offences. It was mentioned by HMIC in a critical part of a report. The national press then decided to do an expose on the matter. However, the facts were somewhat different. My force had a drugs unit which was well populated and supported. Whether or not the report was the cause or not is unknown, but the unit was disbanded. We then were slightly above the norm for such offences. It's laughable and quite shocking in equal measure.
This is the sort of thing that the RC should look at. Are the numbers the way to go or not? Is the HMIC fit for purpose? WTF are PCCs for?
Serious offences that used to be run, not overseen, by an SIO of inspector rank are now run by constables. Yet training is seen as very expensive, which it is.
There's lots wrong with the way we are policed at the moment. The swingeing cuts have shown this up. In the past the service could make-do, push officers from responsibility to responsibility, but those days are long gone.
Not only that, sooner or later, and I think the odds are for the former, there will be a repetition of the metropolitan riots. Seven years ago the police struggled with getting enough officers on scene - mutual aid in the jargon. When it comes again we might well be in it as there is no reserve. There used to be minimum manning levels, below which officers would be brought in on overtime. If my old force is anything to go by, these minimum levels are not attained during a whole day.
The response to the next set of riots will be blamed on the service; that goes without saying. However, the good news, amongst all the burned out remains of factories and shops, is that it might generate an RC.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff