Are the Police Service fit for purpose anymore?

[Red 4]

Les Frogs have 50% more police per capita than England and Wales and Ze Krauts have even more than that.

What is so different about our society that we "need" or should make do with our numbers of police ?

[Agammemnon]

Earthdweller said:

Almost all Police force areas use safety camera vans

They are mostly run by safety camera partnerships .. these are not Police, the staff, vehicles etc are not Police

Why do all the camera vans in my neck of the woods have the word "police" on them if they aren't police? I'd strongly suspect some connection.

[stitched]

oyster said:

stitched said:

In my younger years we often travelled to north wales, accidents on the A5 and later the A55 were not uncommon, response was usually to remove any injured people and clear the road.
Now every accident seems to be treated as a major incident requiring multiple units.

And now such accidents are less common right?

Funny that.

Edited by oyster on Wednesday 19th February 15:21

It wasn't meant as criticism, however if you are going to send multiple units to a RTA to assess all aspects of a crash, rather than push the car off the road and sweep off the glass, then more units are required.
And actually the incidence of accidents doesn't seem to have changed much.

[alfaman]

Rewe said:

Ok.....

Why do you believe our police don't want to protect victims?
Why do you believe they favour criminals?
Why do you believe they don't enforce the law for that specific list of crimes?
Why do you believe they man the camera vans?
What do you actually mean by ”being seen to be ”woke””?

I get it but it makes no rational sense. I must be missing something!

Evidence :1 police did not protect trinity college from wanton vandalism ... Instead just observed it happen. They could have stepped in

2: they have supported XR criminal actions by means of facilitation and enablement... Hence also encouraging future criminality.

3: the law was not effectively enforced (similar to London riots)... Except in this case the police lacked the balls to arrest female students and retired crusties.... they weren't facing violent thugs at Trinity.

[EarlofDrift]

I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.

Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.

Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw

[tangerine_sedge]

EarlofDrift said:

I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.

Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.

Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw

Step 1 : Go to a 'sensitive' place, knowing there will be confrontation.
Step 2 : Get challenged.
Step 3 : Dodge all questions, whilst filming, ensuring confrontation.
Step 4 : Edit and publish to YouTube.
Step 5 : Profit!

[TPSA7514]

oyster said:

Name calling on social media? You mean brutal bullying that has led to some young people taking their own lives?

You consider that a lower priority than petty vandalism?

Yes

[anonymous-user]

alfaman said:

Rewe said:

Ok.....

Why do you believe our police don't want to protect victims?
Why do you believe they favour criminals?
Why do you believe they don't enforce the law for that specific list of crimes?
Why do you believe they man the camera vans?
What do you actually mean by ”being seen to be ”woke””?

I get it but it makes no rational sense. I must be missing something!

Evidence :1 police did not protect trinity college from wanton vandalism ... Instead just observed it happen. They could have stepped in

2: they have supported XR criminal actions by means of facilitation and enablement... Hence also encouraging future criminality.

3: the law was not effectively enforced (similar to London riots)... Except in this case the police lacked the balls to arrest female students and retired crusties.... they weren't facing violent thugs at Trinity.

Cambridge police said:

A spokeswoman for Cambridgeshire police confirmed that the force were in attendance to the incident but claim no arrest will be made.

She said: "We're aware of this incident.

"Officers have been to the college and spoken with staff.

"At this time they do not wish to make a report to police."

Without a complaint you don't have much of a criminal damage offence.

It's perfectly possible the university took time to consider if they wanted to make a complaint or not, hence no immediate action.

It doesn't appear you considered that when posting.

[rxe]

La Liga said:

ithout a complaint you don't have much of a criminal damage offence.

It's perfectly possible the university took time to consider if they wanted to make a complaint or not, hence no immediate action.

It doesn't appear you considered that when posting.

Right. Say someone parks their car and walks off to do something. I get a sledgehammer out and proceed to destroy their car. A policeman arrives and says ‘crack on, no one has complained, if the owner complains, I’ll think about arresting you’.

Really?

[bonerp]

I don't have any faith in the police. They don't come out to crime and don't listen. Their targets seem more important than the truth, or anything else now.
Occasionally in the local rag for county lines drug dealing which is good but its not enough.
I'm knocking on the door of 50 and now feel intimidated walking the town centre.

[anonymous-user]

bonerp said:

I don't have any faith in the police. They don't come out to crime and don't listen. Their targets seem more important than the truth, or anything else now.

The police don't really have any targets.

One of the concerns about the HO currently is they want to return to 'targets', as expressed by the CC of Lincolnshire.

rxe said:

La Liga said:

ithout a complaint you don't have much of a criminal damage offence.

It's perfectly possible the university took time to consider if they wanted to make a complaint or not, hence no immediate action.

It doesn't appear you considered that when posting.

Right. Say someone parks their car and walks off to do something. I get a sledgehammer out and proceed to destroy their car. A policeman arrives and says ‘crack on, no one has complained, if the owner complains, I’ll think about arresting you’.

Really?

I'd say they're slightly different circumstances...

You've got people who have dug up some grass and are remaining there as a part of a protest. It's perfectly possible to have someone monitor them and someone else speak to the owner.

It's a good idea to think about decisions and gather more information before taking action if possible.

Plus how many are sat there initially? 10? Do you need more resources in case you need to arrest 10 and for other contingencies? Can speaking to people narrow it down? What reasonable lines of enquiries would a court consider should have been undertaken in the circumstances, are there police resources like protest evidence gatherers to record things who need to travel down, etc etc etc...

[rxe]

Ok, let's make it a bit more similar.

I go to the chief constable of TVPs house and dig up his lawn. He's at work, so he doesn't complain.

Are you telling me the first reaction of a copper that sees me doing this is "well, the owner hasn't complained, I'll let rxe dig up the lawn until someone does complain"?

I suspect the reaction may be closer to "get the fk off that lawn".

[anonymous-user]

No comparisons alter the circumstances at Cambridge (though I'd say at least make the effort to make the numbers like for like since it's a significant variable), what information was known at what time etc.

You don't need to steam in over some grass having been dug up. Policing is about gathering information before making decisions when possible.

[996owner]

Condi said:

996owner said:

So thats 2 years in a row they get more money and we see nothing.

Do you think police officers should get a pay rise, year on year? Most jobs would hope for an inflation linked pay rise and police should be no different, so perhaps some of that extra cash has gone there.

I couldn't care less about pay rises. Local council tax rises stated Police precept increase to fund more officers NOT pay rises

[anonymous-user]

Depending on the force, an increase on CT police funding could have been / will be used to plug 'funding gaps' to sustain existing levels. So the benefit may not be extra, it may be the same.

[oyster]

EarlofDrift said:

I've been watching a lot of those 'auditor' types on Youtube recently. You know the guys that go to X landmark, a old Cold War era plane outside a base are just filming in a town centre. The way some of them get treated as soon as security and then the police turn up to question them is just embarrassing. They see an innocent member of the public with a camera and it's almost like it's triggered some sort of reaction which usually means they are in for the Spanish Inquisition.

Most of the police turn up for a 'chat', which quickly turns into a interrogation. The auditors know they don't have to give their identity as photography is not a crime. This refusal seems to ramp thing up further. They don't seem to be aware you can photograph anything in public, and private property from a public place a long as it's not into someones house. The police don't seem to know the law regarding photography or filming in public and just appear to make it up as they go along.

Here's one of the finest of recent audits. It's almost like he's threatened to shot passers dead with his camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmxR_4NKjvw

Brilliant.
Our already-overstretched police are strung out by these complete self-absorbed and selfish characters just to make cash on social media, and further denying police resource for actual crimes.

It's funny that you expect the police to know the ins and outs of all laws, yet don't expect these 'auditors' to know they are being self-centred dicks.

As to calling themselves 'auditors' - how childish.

[Earthdweller]

rxe said:

Right. Say someone parks their car and walks off to do something. I get a sledgehammer out and proceed to destroy their car. A policeman arrives and says ‘crack on, no one has complained, if the owner complains, I’ll think about arresting you’.

Really?

Wrong

In your scenario the cop would assume that the owner had not given consent and arrest on suspicion of criminal damage ... if however the owner of the vehicle subsequently refused to make a complaint, then the offender would likely be released without charge

In the Cambridge incident I’d assume the “owner” of the land was present or their agent was and they did not wish to make a complaint

No complaint - no crime

( generalisations and assumptions made, but basics apply )

[anonymous-user]

'Auditors'

There's a skill in quickly recognising people like that and just leaving them alone. Best thing you can do is not give them the attention they crave.

[037]

Has the retirement age of a police officer ever been reviewed? The few guys I know hung up thier boots many years ago then went on to work in other industries for a further 20 years.

[Mort7]

oyster said:

Mort7 said:

I have a huge amount of respect for the officers on the streets, but those in charge, and the Government, clearly have little understanding of how the general public would like to see the police operate.

We need to go back to having a police force. Protecting victims and not the human rights of criminals. Actually enforcing the law for crimes that matter (assaults, burglaries, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour, vandalism, etc), and giving a lower priority to camera vans, name calling on social media, and being seen to be 'woke'.

I had no idea that the police had that degree of funding. It's high time that Government changed police priorities, and made them much more visible and available. I'm sure that police officers must find this equally frustrating. Hopefully once we are free of the EU things can change.

Name calling on social media? You mean brutal bullying that has led to some young people taking their own lives?

You consider that a lower priority than petty vandalism?

It’s 2020 and not 1980. Times have moved on and progressed.

It's all a matter of degree, isn't it. The Humberside case, which I alluded to earlier, is a good example.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/tr...

I don't consider someone tweeting: “I was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish. Don’t mis species me.”, which is then investigated by the police because a single individual made a complaint, to be a higher priority than someone vandalising someone else's property. I don't consider any vandalism to be petty. The fact that you do speaks volumes.

Times have indeed moved on, but not necessarily always for the better.