Are the Police Service fit for purpose anymore?
Discussion
La Liga said:
sometimes fail to understand how there's not a mechanism which makes a person asking the question, "Is that actually true?", when writing something like that.
Police officers being well known for supporting the motives of XR and all...
Clumsy wording on my part. Police officers being well known for supporting the motives of XR and all...
I don't mean every police officer agrees entirely with extinction rebellion. I mean that the cause of climate change is politically acceptable by the police as an organisation and I believe this has a strong influence on how it's policed.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I don't mean every police officer agrees entirely with extinction rebellion. I mean that the cause of climate change is politically acceptable by the police as an organisation and I believe this has a strong influence on how it's policed.
Again, do you actually believe that? When the EDL protest and congregate (which they are legally allowed to do), do you think the police sit back and think that this is what they want to be doing? Or do you instead think any organisation, unless banned, has a right to democratic protest, and the police's job is to enforce the law as created by Parliament?
Condi said:
Again, do you actually believe that?
When the EDL protest and congregate (which they are legally allowed to do), do you think the police sit back and think that this is what they want to be doing? Or do you instead think any organisation, unless banned, has a right to democratic protest, and the police's job is to enforce the law as created by Parliament?
I would like that to be their job. I think too often they are selective in their priorities owing to political considerations.When the EDL protest and congregate (which they are legally allowed to do), do you think the police sit back and think that this is what they want to be doing? Or do you instead think any organisation, unless banned, has a right to democratic protest, and the police's job is to enforce the law as created by Parliament?
Red 4 said:
John Locke said:
1. We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
2. The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
1. Wrong. There are the same number of police currently as there were in 1985.2. The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
England and Wales have lost 20,000 police since 2010.
Where are you getting your " facts" from ?
2.
Are we back to Nazis and The Holocaust again ?
Arrest senior officers for inappropriate orders ? OK, if you say so, Guv.
Some facts: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/police...
2) Are you suggesting that senior officers who break the law or fail to uphold it are immune from arrest and prosecution?
Your response reinforces the first sentence (which you omitted) of my previous post:
"Reading the shocking comments from obvious or apparent police here, defending the police lack of action where it matters, clearly some are no longer fit for purpose."
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I'm not sure they even have a purpose.
They did have, set out nearly 200 years ago and quite successful until relatively recently. The first of the Peelian principles (amazed nobody has mentioned these) of policing is "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment."
Both Cambridge and the possibly worse "occupation" of Paddington Green police station amount to officially sanctioned protests. They could easily be stopped with quite reasonable force, and who can really doubt that they would be if it was Fathers for Justice or the EDL. They will stand by and watch crime and disorder when they agree with the motives.
Some things the police do are amazing. The officers who attended the Borough Market attack seemed almost super human. The work of attending car crashes and death scenes, informing relatives and taking statements from distraught witnesses and victims is grim and far less glamorous. And many do this for years on end with terrific stoicism.
But it's hard to believe that these are the same people as the impotent muppets I witnessed waste 40 minutes conversing with a drunken nuisance last summer. Or who will go and bully some unemployed crank for posting something on Twitter, yet won't attend burglaries or assaults because they are under staffed.
They have become a political play thing, and another branch of a public sector completely in the grip of fashionable "progressive" ideas and actively hostile to things that actually work.
Paddington Green is an empty, part derelict building. No more, no less. It is neither symbol nor talisman. You should be writing for the Wail. They did have, set out nearly 200 years ago and quite successful until relatively recently. The first of the Peelian principles (amazed nobody has mentioned these) of policing is "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment."
Both Cambridge and the possibly worse "occupation" of Paddington Green police station amount to officially sanctioned protests. They could easily be stopped with quite reasonable force, and who can really doubt that they would be if it was Fathers for Justice or the EDL. They will stand by and watch crime and disorder when they agree with the motives.
Some things the police do are amazing. The officers who attended the Borough Market attack seemed almost super human. The work of attending car crashes and death scenes, informing relatives and taking statements from distraught witnesses and victims is grim and far less glamorous. And many do this for years on end with terrific stoicism.
But it's hard to believe that these are the same people as the impotent muppets I witnessed waste 40 minutes conversing with a drunken nuisance last summer. Or who will go and bully some unemployed crank for posting something on Twitter, yet won't attend burglaries or assaults because they are under staffed.
They have become a political play thing, and another branch of a public sector completely in the grip of fashionable "progressive" ideas and actively hostile to things that actually work.
Statements like this: "But it's hard to believe that these are the same people as the impotent muppets I witnessed waste 40 minutes conversing with a drunken nuisance last summer." make it clear that you have little idea of the mechanics and logistics of day to day policing. Let me take you through a typical alternative scenario.
Would you rather those officers were a visible presence in that public place (assuming this chap wasn't in your office or living room...and wasn't you) where they could be redeployed to something more urgent at a moment's notice,...
OR
would you have them arrest the "nuisance"? "Unnecessarily" according to many of the fools who queue up to pour scorn on front line officers, possibly having to take him to the ground because he's bound to resist, causing more scorn-pourers to start filming so they can post another POLICE BRUTALITY video on youtube, then he'll start banging his head off the cage in the van, which will have to be pulled off patrol somewhere else to deal, taking a vehicle and another officer away from whatever they were doing. The 3 officers then have to find a custody space. While they're on the way, the nuisance will bleed all over van from the self-inflicted wounds from banging his head off the cage, then piss himself, meaning the van will be out of action until the outsource contractor can send someone to clean it out. The two officers who were originally "wasting" 40 minutes are then exposed to risk from the male's bodily fluids when they get him out of the vehicle and take him into the custody suite, where he defecates on himself for added fun and frolics. The custody sargeant takes one look at him and decides his head injuries need treatment before he can be locked up, so the same officers have to escort him to A&E 30 minutes away and wait with him until he's patched up, at public expense, which takes two hours, then take him back to custody and book him in, by which time there are no cell spaces left, so they need to go to the next nearest custody which might be another 30 minutes away. This is one staffed by a single officer so at least one of our "time wasters" has to stay to carry out constant watch on the drunk with the head injury, probably overnight, because he won't be fit for interview until he's sobered up. He might get relieved by an available officer from elsewhere, he might not. The officer who was driving the original van and the second arresting officer have now been stranded away from their home station. Their shifts are finished and they'd like to go home They either have to find public transport which they'll have to pay for, a taxi, ditto, or wait for a space to be available in a police vehicle going that way - The van driver might have just worked his 3rd 11 or 12 hour shift in as many days and really want to get home to kiss his 6 year old daughter good night for once.
Or they could just "waste" 40 minutes...
Pothole said:
Paddington Green is an empty, part derelict building. No more, no less. It is neither symbol nor talisman. You should be writing for the Wail.
Statements like this: "But it's hard to believe that these are the same people as the impotent muppets I witnessed waste 40 minutes conversing with a drunken nuisance last summer." make it clear that you have little idea of the mechanics and logistics of day to day policing. Let me take you through a typical alternative scenario.
Would you rather those officers were a visible presence in that public place (assuming this chap wasn't in your office or living room...and wasn't you) where they could be redeployed to something more urgent at a moment's notice,...
OR
would you have them arrest the "nuisance"? "Unnecessarily" according to many of the fools who queue up to pour scorn on front line officers, possibly having to take him to the ground because he's bound to resist, causing more scorn-pourers to start filming so they can post another POLICE BRUTALITY video on youtube, then he'll start banging his head off the cage in the van, which will have to be pulled off patrol somewhere else to deal, taking a vehicle and another officer away from whatever they were doing. The 3 officers then have to find a custody space. While they're on the way, the nuisance will bleed all over van from the self-inflicted wounds from banging his head off the cage, then piss himself, meaning the van will be out of action until the outsource contractor can send someone to clean it out. The two officers who were originally "wasting" 40 minutes are then exposed to risk from the male's bodily fluids when they get him out of the vehicle and take him into the custody suite, where he defecates on himself for added fun and frolics. The custody sargeant takes one look at him and decides his head injuries need treatment before he can be locked up, so the same officers have to escort him to A&E 30 minutes away and wait with him until he's patched up, at public expense, which takes two hours, then take him back to custody and book him in, by which time there are no cell spaces left, so they need to go to the next nearest custody which might be another 30 minutes away. This is one staffed by a single officer so at least one of our "time wasters" has to stay to carry out constant watch on the drunk with the head injury, probably overnight, because he won't be fit for interview until he's sobered up. He might get relieved by an available officer from elsewhere, he might not. The officer who was driving the original van and the second arresting officer have now been stranded away from their home station. Their shifts are finished and they'd like to go home They either have to find public transport which they'll have to pay for, a taxi, ditto, or wait for a space to be available in a police vehicle going that way - The van driver might have just worked his 3rd 11 or 12 hour shift in as many days and really want to get home to kiss his 6 year old daughter good night for once.
Or they could just "waste" 40 minutes...
To be fair, Ph, I think you are wasting your time. You will not change his mind. He believes that the police are supporters of various demonstrations without evidence, a transubstantiation sort of thing, and that's it. Statements like this: "But it's hard to believe that these are the same people as the impotent muppets I witnessed waste 40 minutes conversing with a drunken nuisance last summer." make it clear that you have little idea of the mechanics and logistics of day to day policing. Let me take you through a typical alternative scenario.
Would you rather those officers were a visible presence in that public place (assuming this chap wasn't in your office or living room...and wasn't you) where they could be redeployed to something more urgent at a moment's notice,...
OR
would you have them arrest the "nuisance"? "Unnecessarily" according to many of the fools who queue up to pour scorn on front line officers, possibly having to take him to the ground because he's bound to resist, causing more scorn-pourers to start filming so they can post another POLICE BRUTALITY video on youtube, then he'll start banging his head off the cage in the van, which will have to be pulled off patrol somewhere else to deal, taking a vehicle and another officer away from whatever they were doing. The 3 officers then have to find a custody space. While they're on the way, the nuisance will bleed all over van from the self-inflicted wounds from banging his head off the cage, then piss himself, meaning the van will be out of action until the outsource contractor can send someone to clean it out. The two officers who were originally "wasting" 40 minutes are then exposed to risk from the male's bodily fluids when they get him out of the vehicle and take him into the custody suite, where he defecates on himself for added fun and frolics. The custody sargeant takes one look at him and decides his head injuries need treatment before he can be locked up, so the same officers have to escort him to A&E 30 minutes away and wait with him until he's patched up, at public expense, which takes two hours, then take him back to custody and book him in, by which time there are no cell spaces left, so they need to go to the next nearest custody which might be another 30 minutes away. This is one staffed by a single officer so at least one of our "time wasters" has to stay to carry out constant watch on the drunk with the head injury, probably overnight, because he won't be fit for interview until he's sobered up. He might get relieved by an available officer from elsewhere, he might not. The officer who was driving the original van and the second arresting officer have now been stranded away from their home station. Their shifts are finished and they'd like to go home They either have to find public transport which they'll have to pay for, a taxi, ditto, or wait for a space to be available in a police vehicle going that way - The van driver might have just worked his 3rd 11 or 12 hour shift in as many days and really want to get home to kiss his 6 year old daughter good night for once.
Or they could just "waste" 40 minutes...
One wonders what they do when an electrician does something in their homes. Do they tell them that they are doing it all wrong, and that they are overpaid, or do they accept that some things are a dark art, especially when the lights fail. 'No mate, that wire goes there.'
The idea that the police don't want to deal with burglaries is one of those myths that is so far against what the police want to do that it defies logic. Then there's the fact that police officers want to stay in the nick all day completing paperwork. There's no talking to people who think that, and then build a whole case for dismissal around their prejudice.
John Locke said:
Red 4 said:
John Locke said:
1. We have more police, and greater funding (in real terms) per head of population than at almost any other time since WW2, yet somehow, there is little visible presence, and frequently a surly reluctance to act when upholding of the law is demanded.
2. The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
1. Wrong. There are the same number of police currently as there were in 1985.2. The problems may stem from above, but as has been pointed out previously, following orders is not a defence for wrongdoing; if the cops on the ground receive inappropriate orders from their "superiors", they could and should arrest them for misconduct in public office.
England and Wales have lost 20,000 police since 2010.
Where are you getting your " facts" from ?
2.
Are we back to Nazis and The Holocaust again ?
Arrest senior officers for inappropriate orders ? OK, if you say so, Guv.
Some facts: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/police...
2) Are you suggesting that senior officers who break the law or fail to uphold it are immune from arrest and prosecution?
Your response reinforces the first sentence (which you omitted) of my previous post:
"Reading the shocking comments from obvious or apparent police here, defending the police lack of action where it matters, clearly some are no longer fit for purpose."
You are now posting a news article comparing police numbers in the 60s to current levels.
Why ? That isn't what you said in your previous post and policing in the 60s is not comparable to the present day.
I'm stating that your suggestion to arrest senior officers in some sort of mutiny is ridiculous.
Don't move the goalposts.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your argument and pointing out that your "facts" are not facts at all.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 22 February 10:24
JuanCarlosFandango said:
La Liga said:
sometimes fail to understand how there's not a mechanism which makes a person asking the question, "Is that actually true?", when writing something like that.
Police officers being well known for supporting the motives of XR and all...
Clumsy wording on my part. Police officers being well known for supporting the motives of XR and all...
I don't mean every police officer agrees entirely with extinction rebellion. I mean that the cause of climate change is politically acceptable by the police as an organisation and I believe this has a strong influence on how it's policed.
XCP said:
I think there is a huge gulf between the people who actually know what they are talking about ( as illustrated by the real life tale of the drunk above) and those who don't.
Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
As I typed I was recalling a conversation I had last week with an officer who really tried not to arrest someone for being Drunk and Disorderly. It was only after they returned for the 5th time and were still calling the officer and his female colleague c@nts and throwing chips at them that they finally decided they had to do so. They had given him advice to tone down his language and just make his way home the other 4 times. Typical timewasting muppets, though, eh?Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
I relate those snap assumptions to the ones managers sometimes make if they spot that you're looking at a news website on a work PC. You MUST have been doing that ALL DAY, surely?
XCP said:
I think there is a huge gulf between the people who actually know what they are talking about ( as illustrated by the real life tale of the drunk above) and those who don't.
Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
It's not entirely clear which knowledge or which opinion that generalised group slur ^ applies to, in being compared to public opinion - which is neither stated nor justified to allow a comparison. A bit too wiffly waffly.Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
There are many aspects to public opinion; do they differ from the majority PH view as gleaned from reading many posts in this and the other thread? Not markedly. There's a mix of sources below by way of illustration, so there should be something for shooting messengers if anyone has nothing else of value to add.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-ne...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/the-police-a...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8018001/P...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/extinction-rebe...
XCP said:
I think there is a huge gulf between the people who actually know what they are talking about ( as illustrated by the real life tale of the drunk above) and those who don't.
Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
Indeed.Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
Those who don't know what they're talking about tend to use a veneer of Google to cover their bullpoop.
Countdown said:
XCP said:
I think there is a huge gulf between the people who actually know what they are talking about ( as illustrated by the real life tale of the drunk above) and those who don't.
Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
Indeed.Fortunately NP and E on Pistonheads is far from being a representative sample of public opinion.
Those who don't know what they're talking about tend to use a veneer of Google to cover their bullpoop.
Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
turbobloke said:
Metooism, how wonderful. What a shame people have different views, and that some can't cope with this, hence the slurs ^^
When I used the phrase "a veneer of Google covering a mound of bullpoop what made you think i was referring to you?I like different views. I don't like bulls
t covered in wafflespeak.It’s certainly annoying if they’re blocking roads and creating an obstruction. And I think most people, including the police, would rather they not be there.
Cambs has what? 1300 police officers. What’s their cell capacity going to be? 40? That’s if there enough custody staff to safely operate that number.
It gets very expensive very quickly if you’re filling all your cells with people for low-level obstruction offences. Also from a risk point of view there are so many more important things that requires a response / process capacity to be maintained.
Something XR know too well. It’s a long-used tactic for left-wing protesting to be willing to be arrested as they know how involved and slow police processes are.
There are a number of factors to consider.
Cambs has what? 1300 police officers. What’s their cell capacity going to be? 40? That’s if there enough custody staff to safely operate that number.
It gets very expensive very quickly if you’re filling all your cells with people for low-level obstruction offences. Also from a risk point of view there are so many more important things that requires a response / process capacity to be maintained.
Something XR know too well. It’s a long-used tactic for left-wing protesting to be willing to be arrested as they know how involved and slow police processes are.
There are a number of factors to consider.
turbobloke said:
Metooism, how wonderful. What a shame people have different views, and that some can't cope with this, hence the slurs ^^
Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
Or, from the same survey, only 12% are dissatisfied. There are more than two answers. Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
Presenting a more complete dataset would be more balanced.
turbobloke said:
Metooism, how wonderful. What a shame people have different views, and that some can't cope with this, hence the slurs ^^
Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
How did they phrase the question which measured the respondents' local forces' response to extremism/terrorism? I suspect many people in rural areas struggled to tick any box except "neither unsatisfied nor satisfied" as that specific issue doesn't really figure in their lives.Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
I think this thread has shown, as many others have before it, that the main issue with public perception of police performance is unrealistic expectation. Forces don't manage this expectation very well, but that doesn't change the fact that the average man in the street hasn't a clue how policing works and so has no real foundation on which to base their expectation. I was one of those people until 5 years ago. My perception and subsequent expectation has changed wildly since then.
Pothole said:
turbobloke said:
Metooism, how wonderful. What a shame people have different views, and that some can't cope with this, hence the slurs ^^
Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
How did they phrase the question which measured the respondents' local forces' response to extremism/terrorism? I suspect many people in rural areas struggled to tick any box except "neither unsatisfied nor satisfied" as that specific issue doesn't really figure in their lives.Back on-topic, the HMICFRS survey for 2018, published in 2019, showed only 61% of respondents were satisfied with their local police service, though that's an increase over 2017 which was even worse. Poop poor results.
The top type of crime respondents think police should prioritise, beating all other types of crime, is extremism/terrorism. What a surprise! To Cambridge police maybe.
People in rural areas, amazingly, watch the news and read newspapers, they even visit towns and cities.
Pothole said:
I think this thread has shown, as many others have before it, that the main issue with public perception of police performance is unrealistic expectation. Forces don't manage this expectation very well, but that doesn't change the fact that the average man in the street hasn't a clue how policing works and so has no real foundation on which to base their expectation. I was one of those people until 5 years ago. My perception and subsequent expectation has changed wildly since then.
Satisfaction doesn't depend on knowing how policing works, it depends on the quality of experience.It may well be that how policing works needs to change - satisfaction ought to be at least 80% for a group dedicated to protecting and serving (or is that role only for the City of London police) rather than languishing in the 50s and 60s. It would be informative to have a survey in Cambridge right now.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 22 February 13:00
Red 4 said:
Surveys, eh ?
According to the survey 20% of respondents have not seen police (in a vehicle) within the last year.
Where do these people live ? In a cave ? Come on, own up, which PHers responded to the survey ?
Some haven't seen much at all of police cars. Such is life. According to the survey 20% of respondents have not seen police (in a vehicle) within the last year.
Where do these people live ? In a cave ? Come on, own up, which PHers responded to the survey ?
It doesn't reflect my experience in the UK but it does for the times I've spent abroad (Europe, Far East) where in both cases in spending months at a time in each location there wasn't a single sighting. This may be a good thing - in both locations the crime rate barely existed. It's certainly not worth hinting that the respondents are liars.
A thankfully very small but growing number see too much of police cars up-close. The increase must be a cause for concern, or has policy changed in the last year of stats and if so in what way?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff