Are the Police Service fit for purpose anymore?
Discussion
Coolbananas said:
Greendubber said:
No not at all, the police often have their hands tied. That doesn't look good to members of the public, what are the police supposed to do if they're powerless to act? Make it up, risk complaints of assault for grabbing people, get taken to court for unlawful detention?
A lack of understanding is what fuels the issues with public confidence. People also forget the police HAVE to facilitate protest. XR are rightly not popular with their tactics but the police cant take sides and have a duty under article 11.
100% A lack of understanding is what fuels the issues with public confidence. People also forget the police HAVE to facilitate protest. XR are rightly not popular with their tactics but the police cant take sides and have a duty under article 11.
It is bizarre reading some of the whinges on here about what is in fact one of the World's best and most effective Police Services.
The moaners who expect perfection but at no additional cost or liberty to themselves personally ought to go and live in a country that does have a genuinely struggling Police Service and gain some appreciation for what they take for granted and b
h about. Also, if the solution is more money, then I am happy to support that. I don’t think a anyone has said differently.
turbobloke said:
They did act eventuallly, with arrests for criminal damage and obstructing police iirc; too little too late.
Not really, they've been charged to appear at court.At which point did the University decide it wanted to make a complaint?
Obviously you must know with the 'too little too late' comment.
turbobloke said:
We can discuss permission/no permission, reporting/not reporting/delay in reporting in any number of threads, that won't change the fact that when the public see police standing back as criminal damage is committed, after facilitating full obstruction of the public highway, it won't end well for police in the court of public confidence and respect.
I think it'll be fine given the long-term resilience: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk...cb31 said:
Derek Smith said:
You mean acting outside their powers and the law? Now there's a good idea. I wonder what you will post if you were stopped without authority, arrested without cause and prosecuted without reason.
On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
Near me schoolkids were causing a nuisance in the shopping centre, less than 2 days later any groups of more than 2 people were being broken up and moved on by the police. Funny how nothing can be done to XR wasters blocking cities and digging up property.On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
If they put football scarfs on them they would have been charged by horses and in jail in no time. I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing but the public doesn't agree and no amount of excuses and weasel words are helping.
The reality with XR is one of their tactics is to present overwhelming numbers of people willing to be arrested for low-level offences.
Outside of the Met this creates serious issues. That's why they do it. Even the Met had significant mutual aid IIRC. There are more things going on in areas than just these people protesting.
La Liga said:
cb31 said:
Derek Smith said:
You mean acting outside their powers and the law? Now there's a good idea. I wonder what you will post if you were stopped without authority, arrested without cause and prosecuted without reason.
On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
Near me schoolkids were causing a nuisance in the shopping centre, less than 2 days later any groups of more than 2 people were being broken up and moved on by the police. Funny how nothing can be done to XR wasters blocking cities and digging up property.On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
If they put football scarfs on them they would have been charged by horses and in jail in no time. I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing but the public doesn't agree and no amount of excuses and weasel words are helping.
The reality with XR is one of their tactics is to present overwhelming numbers of people willing to be arrested for low-level offences.
Outside of the Met this creates serious issues. That's why they do it. Even the Met had significant mutual aid IIRC. There are more things going on in areas than just these people protesting.
When it's said that XR are present in overwhelming numbers, it didn't look that way in Cambridge.
Still, assuming the numbers are too great, why don't police do what they do with football crowds and move to arrest the main troublemakers first, then review video footage and make more arrests later.
Police can then stagger subsequent arrests to suit. Several of the XR people in London were arrested more than once and were on video multiple times. Some may have driven away in their remotely parked Volvos back to their parents' centrally heated semis, but by no means all, so they'd be available for arrest later.
Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable. Is this really all that people intent on disorder who undertake criminal behaviour need to do to defeat the police?
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
turbobloke said:
Of course there are other things going on.
When it's said that XR are present in overwhelming numbers, it didn't look that way in Cambridge.
Still, assuming the numbers are too great, why don't police do what they do with football crowds and move to arrest the main troublemakers first, then review video footage and make more arrests later.
Police can then stagger subsequent arrests to suit. Several of the XR people in London were arrested more than once and were on video multiple times. Some may have driven away in their remotely parked Volvos back to their parents' centrally heated semis, but by no means all, so they'd be available for arrest later.
Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable. Is this really all that people intent on disorder who undertake criminal behaviour need to do to defeat the police?
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
What about all those man hours taken up arresting, processing, holding people, whereas that time could be spent catching 'real criminals', ie robbers, violence, drugs etc. All a question of priorities. When it's said that XR are present in overwhelming numbers, it didn't look that way in Cambridge.
Still, assuming the numbers are too great, why don't police do what they do with football crowds and move to arrest the main troublemakers first, then review video footage and make more arrests later.
Police can then stagger subsequent arrests to suit. Several of the XR people in London were arrested more than once and were on video multiple times. Some may have driven away in their remotely parked Volvos back to their parents' centrally heated semis, but by no means all, so they'd be available for arrest later.
Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable. Is this really all that people intent on disorder who undertake criminal behaviour need to do to defeat the police?
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
If someone was stealing your car, but the police were unable to respond because the whole available force was processing some people who had dug up a private lawn, you'd be the first person to complain about it.
Anyway, like everything else, you know better. Why not write to the Home Secretary and offer your services as someone who can end all crime using only the existing budget and resources, I'm sure the government and Chief of Police would be delighted to hear your thoughts.
La Liga said:
cb31 said:
Derek Smith said:
You mean acting outside their powers and the law? Now there's a good idea. I wonder what you will post if you were stopped without authority, arrested without cause and prosecuted without reason.
On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
Near me schoolkids were causing a nuisance in the shopping centre, less than 2 days later any groups of more than 2 people were being broken up and moved on by the police. Funny how nothing can be done to XR wasters blocking cities and digging up property.On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
If they put football scarfs on them they would have been charged by horses and in jail in no time. I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing but the public doesn't agree and no amount of excuses and weasel words are helping.
The reality with XR is one of their tactics is to present overwhelming numbers of people willing to be arrested for low-level offences.
Outside of the Met this creates serious issues. That's why they do it. Even the Met had significant mutual aid IIRC. There are more things going on in areas than just these people protesting.
We put out a massed police presence, had a dedicated team in a dedicated control room with CCTV in all the likely spots. It was a success in that only a couple of side roads were closed by the 200, about 100 down from the original number, or so protesters. When they formed up for trouble, so did the police. We still had those who moaned about lack of police action against the protesters (nothing new under the sun) but from an operational POV it was a success.
When all those who could have done much better (see certain posters on this thread for examples) were asked, this pre PH times, to attend a meeting to put their point of view, the simple complainers (see certain . . . for examples) came up with their simple suggestions (see certain . . . for examples). The favoured option was that the police should have arrested all the demonstrators. A total solution. No argument about it whatsoever. It was hardly rocket science, and that was the problem, there was no science.
The team taking the meeting spared no blushes and went through the process of arresting each individual demonstrator. It was pointed out that the demonstrators outnumbered the police by about 6:1. All of a sudden their suggestions looked flimsy. They didn't have the option of ignoring the points which destroyed their arguments and just posting, sorry saying, the same things again.
One of those on the panel said that the meeting was both a success - they demonstrated that the only option, despite flooding the area with police, was the one chosen - and a failure. It seemed many of those at the meeting complained about the less than sympathetic way their ignorance was dealt with.
La Liga is polite, puts his points over clearly, and often give options.
That's OK, but how much better to say to those too thick to work out themselves, or too bloody-minded to be sensible, that logistically, it is often impossible to arrest hundreds of protesters. It's obvious, although only to those who can work out the basics - you know, everyone with sense.
My friend on the panel, of somewhat higher rank than me, who joined the service from running a company in the private sector, said that her irritation was difficult (she meant impossible) to hide when those who knew nothing about police work, didn't know the number of police available, the systems that the police were obliged to follow, and the laws that were made by democratically elected governments which the service was required, under threat of penalty, to conform to, came up with their simplistic solutions in the belief that the police hadn't considered them as an option. Patronising is too small a word for the conceit required to suggest it. (See certain . . . for examples.)
What was not said at this meeting, which anyone with any idea of such matters would know, is that it doesn't do to be totally successful against demonstrators. As it was, they blocked some side roads which were easy enough to detour around. Indeed, their greatest through-traffic was rat-runners. They could go back and tell everyone what a great success it all was and how their made their point (which I've forgotten) in a massive way. They were cheered and probably got laid. What they didn't do was try it again in Brighton mainly, I suppose, is because everyone knew what a failure for them it was.
Had we nicked them all, there would have been repeat demonstrations the following weekend, and so on. Then, at the trials, their briefs would come up with some fantastical defence on HR grounds (nothing new there) and the judge would criticise the police for acting outside the law. The police would not appeal due to costs and it would have been a disaster.
I'd be the first to admit that the police make mistakes. I've made enough. However, what I find difficult to accept is that some guy on a keyboard can work out what is best when they patently have no idea of constraints.
turbobloke said:
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
Ban all of them ? For what ? As has been explained to you police must facilitate peaceful protest/ assembly.Those charged have bail conditions not to enter Cambridge. Easy arrest if they try.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
cb31 said:
Derek Smith said:
You mean acting outside their powers and the law? Now there's a good idea. I wonder what you will post if you were stopped without authority, arrested without cause and prosecuted without reason.
On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
Near me schoolkids were causing a nuisance in the shopping centre, less than 2 days later any groups of more than 2 people were being broken up and moved on by the police. Funny how nothing can be done to XR wasters blocking cities and digging up property.On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
If they put football scarfs on them they would have been charged by horses and in jail in no time. I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing but the public doesn't agree and no amount of excuses and weasel words are helping.
The reality with XR is one of their tactics is to present overwhelming numbers of people willing to be arrested for low-level offences.
Outside of the Met this creates serious issues. That's why they do it. Even the Met had significant mutual aid IIRC. There are more things going on in areas than just these people protesting.
When it's said that XR are present in overwhelming numbers, it didn't look that way in Cambridge.
Still, assuming the numbers are too great, why don't police do what they do with football crowds and move to arrest the main troublemakers first, then review video footage and make more arrests later.
Police can then stagger subsequent arrests to suit. Several of the XR people in London were arrested more than once and were on video multiple times. Some may have driven away in their remotely parked Volvos back to their parents' centrally heated semis, but by no means all, so they'd be available for arrest later.
Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable. Is this really all that people intent on disorder who undertake criminal behaviour need to do to defeat the police?
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
cb31 said:
Derek Smith said:
You mean acting outside their powers and the law? Now there's a good idea. I wonder what you will post if you were stopped without authority, arrested without cause and prosecuted without reason.
On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
Near me schoolkids were causing a nuisance in the shopping centre, less than 2 days later any groups of more than 2 people were being broken up and moved on by the police. Funny how nothing can be done to XR wasters blocking cities and digging up property.On second thoughts, we don't.
It's difficult to work out a process where only those who deserve it, ie not you, are subject of illegal process.
If they put football scarfs on them they would have been charged by horses and in jail in no time. I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing but the public doesn't agree and no amount of excuses and weasel words are helping.
The reality with XR is one of their tactics is to present overwhelming numbers of people willing to be arrested for low-level offences.
Outside of the Met this creates serious issues. That's why they do it. Even the Met had significant mutual aid IIRC. There are more things going on in areas than just these people protesting.
When it's said that XR are present in overwhelming numbers, it didn't look that way in Cambridge.
Still, assuming the numbers are too great, why don't police do what they do with football crowds and move to arrest the main troublemakers first, then review video footage and make more arrests later.
Police can then stagger subsequent arrests to suit. Several of the XR people in London were arrested more than once and were on video multiple times. Some may have driven away in their remotely parked Volvos back to their parents' centrally heated semis, but by no means all, so they'd be available for arrest later.
Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable. Is this really all that people intent on disorder who undertake criminal behaviour need to do to defeat the police?
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
If the protesters are sat there, and there's no immediacy, then there's no harm with taking a little more time to find out what Cambridge wanted to do (which initially was apparently nothing) and getting more information about the situation.
Re-read my previous posts to you. Tone was too harsh. I apolgise for that I wouldn't speak to you in person like that so shouldn't do online.
Greendubber said:
Agammemnon said:
Greendubber said:
Is it? Or is it a case of public safety and trying to contain a problem?
It's not a case of containing the problem so much as facilitating it & encouraging more in future.Agammemnon said:
Greendubber said:
Agammemnon said:
Greendubber said:
Is it? Or is it a case of public safety and trying to contain a problem?
It's not a case of containing the problem so much as facilitating it & encouraging more in future.turbobloke said:
Of course there are other things going on.
When it's said that XR are present in overwhelming numbers, it didn't look that way in Cambridge.
Still, assuming the numbers are too great, why don't police do what they do with football crowds and move to arrest the main troublemakers first, then review video footage and make more arrests later.
Police can then stagger subsequent arrests to suit. Several of the XR people in London were arrested more than once and were on video multiple times. Some may have driven away in their remotely parked Volvos back to their parents' centrally heated semis, but by no means all, so they'd be available for arrest later.
Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable. Is this really all that people intent on disorder who undertake criminal behaviour need to do to defeat the police?
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
I couldn't resist reposting this as it is a fine example of my post above.When it's said that XR are present in overwhelming numbers, it didn't look that way in Cambridge.
Still, assuming the numbers are too great, why don't police do what they do with football crowds and move to arrest the main troublemakers first, then review video footage and make more arrests later.
Police can then stagger subsequent arrests to suit. Several of the XR people in London were arrested more than once and were on video multiple times. Some may have driven away in their remotely parked Volvos back to their parents' centrally heated semis, but by no means all, so they'd be available for arrest later.
Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable. Is this really all that people intent on disorder who undertake criminal behaviour need to do to defeat the police?
Police have powers to ban people from town centres, magistrates can issue civil orders, surely these powers should be used where lawful protest evolves into criminal behaviour including XR even when they're pally with the local Labour MP and left-wing Councillors.
Let’s ignore ‘it didn’t look that way’. I might come back to it if I need some low-hanging fruit.
On the face of it, it seems a sensible POV; "Saying 'too many' and giving up is defeatist and unacceptable.”
It is nonsensical of course, patronising as it was probably meant to, and self-aggrandising as it suggests the poster knows so much better despite, well, despite ignorance of processes.
It ignores all the posts by those who explained the problems, not only practical and logistical, but political and legal as well. It ignores the fact that certain bans have recently been called unconstitutional by courts. He must have missed that. It was an example that the police try options.
It ignores the fact that the police will have been in contact with mayors, lawyers, and government officials with regards to options and tactics. I hate to break it to him, but policy is not decided by Alan from car maintenance. What they didn’t do was discuss it with some hard-worker in private industry who is so efficient he can post total solutions all day on forums and still do whatever he does. We don't know, other than knowing it's nothing to do with police work. I would assume he’s not a football supporter as he’d understand the different behaviours of hooligans and demonstrators.
It also suggests that for some, as yet unexplained, reason the police policy makers do not want to arrest demonstrators despite it being the easy option and it would get the perpetual moaners off their back. Although it wouldn’t of course. They’d find something else to moan about. It’s what they do.
I refuse to be defeatist and will correct poorly thought-out criticisms despite knowing that there are not enough hours in the day to do so. After all, trying to be effective with limited resources was what police officers did all day in my time. And that was before the swingeing cuts to staff.
Gargamel said:
They have 12.3 Billion to spend. And 124,000 Police Officers.
Are they really short of manpower or resources ?
They may not have the resources needed to meet the expectations of the public but the correct answer to the question "How many people work for the UK police force?" is actually well over 200,000.Are they really short of manpower or resources ?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
SS7
shoestring7 said:
Gargamel said:
They have 12.3 Billion to spend. And 124,000 Police Officers.
Are they really short of manpower or resources ?
They may not have the resources needed to meet the expectations of the public but the correct answer to the question "How many people work for the UK police force?" is actually well over 200,000.Are they really short of manpower or resources ?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
SS
You seem to be suggesting that police numbers are sufficient.
Did you know that Italy has over twice as many police officers per head of population compared to England and Wales ?
We are well down the list as far as that goes.
Edited by Red 4 on Thursday 20th February 18:00
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff