Are the Police Service fit for purpose anymore?

[Rewe]

techguyone said:

Rewe said:

Mort7 said:

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'.

Could you explain how you arrived at this bit because it doesn’t make any sense?

I don't know why, there's not even any big words there, made sense to me. Try reading it again. Repeatedly. Until you get it.

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!

[powerstroke]

As others have said re instate the police FORCE , I would add then put anyone with a degree on the beat or cleaning cells ,
bring back police houses in small towns and villages , most importantly make watching 60's 70's and 80's police drama part of police training ,.....

Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 19th February 17:55

[Mort7]

Lots of debate. Great!

Electro1980 said:

Mort7 said:

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'.

Answer me this:

How many people die or have life changing injuries each year as a result of burglaries, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour and vandalism, and how much do these crimes cost society?

How many people die or have life changing injuries each year as a result of speeding drivers, and how much does this cost society?

I can't quote the statistics. Can you? I do believe that most people would consider tackling violent crime and burglary to be of higher priority than catching someone at 85 mph on a clear motorway, or at 36 mph in an inappropriately low rural speed limit where there are no houses, which is where I see most speed cameras. They are concerned with raising revenue, not road safety. If safety was their primary concern then the cameras would be near schools and in towns and residential areas.

Condi 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.

Your post is complete nonsense, the police have a huge number of important jobs and the public are by no means the best people to decided which is most important. Neither do the police protect the human rights of criminals (thats a legal job), nor do they go about attempting to be seen as 'woke' (whatever you mean by that sentence). Finally, once we are free of the EU how does that change the budget, staff numbers, number of crimes, or priorities of the police in the UK?

You clearly haven't been reading much recently. Newspaper reports have been littered with stories of criminal's human rights being protected, to the frustration of those who have been their victims. I use the term 'woke' in it's accepted sense. Look it up. Once we are free of the EU we will no longer be bound by EU-wide laws which have been imposed upon us, and therefore the relative priorities which we apply to policing can be adapted to serve our particular needs.

Rewe said:

Mort7 said:

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'.

Could you explain how you arrived at this bit because it doesn’t make any sense?

I'm not sure how I can simplify this further. Assaults, burglary, theft, vandalism, antisocial behaviour, etc have a profound effect on the victims, and detrimental effect on our society, which leads me to conclude that they should be prioritised over someone being insulted on Twitter, for example

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

Not sure why there's such a difference in police response to demonstrations when the situation of protesting citizens is hardly new.

When business owners / farmers and their employees / families of the Countryside Alliance protested, their skulls were cracked.




When crusty marxists, anarchists and revolting students protested, they got treated with kid gloves.

Consistency goes wrong too. Police stood back while London rioters burned buildings to the ground, and recently stood back while highways were fully blocked unlawfully by XR. At least that's consistent, but consistently miscalculated.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 19th February 13:21

No pictures of the 48 police who were injured by protestors on that day then? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/met-chief-shocked-...

Or of

Daily Mail said:

There were some very angry Welsh boys fired up and looking for a scrap,' Bonner recalls.

(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1170404/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Why-Left-silent-riot-squads-inflicted-terrible-injuries-peaceful-country-folk-2004.html)

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

No pictures of the 48 police who were injured by protestors on that day then?

No mention either of the circumstances. With thuggish behaviour from police it'd be surprising if only the Welsh boys mentioned in your post were prompted to defend themselves...were they injured?

[Pothole]

Condi said:

turbobloke said:

In some aspects they're doing a great job but not in Cambridge at the moment.

Not sure why you or anyone would want to silence any critique. Police won't improve their 'service' with pats on the helmet. Consumers / customers are entitled to offer their perspective, and with policing by consent it's essential.

The danger is when people bang on about stuff without understanding what the police are actually doing already, and how well they're actually managing with the existing resources available to them.

There are roughly the same number of police officers now as there were in 2003, and yet the UK population has gone up by 11%. The police are also expected to look into a much wider range of crimes (historical sex abuse, online fraud, etc), than they used to, and no doubt the paperwork has increased too. To get more from the police requires an increase in numbers, which has to be paid for either by increases taxes or by taking money from other parts of the budget.

The majority of fraud is dealt with by Action Fraud, not your local force.

[Elroy Blue]

Pothole said:

The majority of fraud is dealt with by Action Fraud, not your local force.

It's recorded by Action Fraud then sent to the appropriate Force to deal with

[turbobloke]

Pothole said:

Condi said:

turbobloke said:

In some aspects they're doing a great job but not in Cambridge at the moment.

Not sure why you or anyone would want to silence any critique. Police won't improve their 'service' with pats on the helmet. Consumers / customers are entitled to offer their perspective, and with policing by consent it's essential.

The danger is when people bang on about stuff without understanding what the police are actually doing already, and how well they're actually managing with the existing resources available to them.

There are roughly the same number of police officers now as there were in 2003, and yet the UK population has gone up by 11%. The police are also expected to look into a much wider range of crimes (historical sex abuse, online fraud, etc), than they used to, and no doubt the paperwork has increased too. To get more from the police requires an increase in numbers, which has to be paid for either by increases taxes or by taking money from other parts of the budget.

The majority of fraud is dealt with by Action Fraud, not your local force.

Are you suggesting Condi doesn't know what the police do already?!

How ironic that would be. Not to mention hypocritical (Condi, not youPothole).

Knowing what police do when interacting with their customers/clients is something that customers/clients know only too well.

They can also see what happens in Cambridge.

[Transmitter Man]

Robocop had the right model regards bringing crime down. Targeting the known criminals.

Was it not something like a 40% crime reduction on his patch?

Phil

[Pothole]

Gargamel said:

Perhaps this is one of those areas where what the public want and what the reality is for the police diverge.

Shoplifting, bicycle theft or similar. The public would like an investigation, and arrest, prosecution etc.

They don’t want to hear, Police Priorities, scare resources or ‘its not worth it’. And they certainly don’t want a blanket policy - we no longer investigate or send any one to a routine domestic break in.

Now the Police may be making all the right choices for resources and workload, but the customers aren’t happy with the service.

Do you have a proposal which would make customers happy with the service? Can that be delivered with the current budget and officer numbers? How much do you know about the possible lines of inquiry around a cycle theft from outside the local shops, for instance? Take me through your idea of how, exactly, you would conduct an investigation which lead to an arrest. Give me an idea of how many officer hours that would use from end to end, then tell me it's as high priority as domestic assaults, murders, people wanting to jump off bridges, etc.

I'm not having a go, I'd like to understand what you know about the above, because you sound like you might know, or think you know, more than the average man in the street.

[turbobloke]

Elroy Blue said:

Pothole said:

The majority of fraud is dealt with by Action Fraud, not your local force.

It's recorded by Action Fraud then sent to the appropriate Force to deal with

You're on the inside iirc. I think you've mentioned it but I could be wrong. Not being nosy just noting what I think I read previously.

What about ROCUs, NCA?

Headlines from relevant HMICFRS Report said:

The law enforcement response to fraud is disjointed and ineffective.
There is no national strategy for tackling fraud.

Roles and responsibilities are not clear.
Across police forces, regional organised crime units and national bodies, there is no
clear understanding of who is responsible for fraud-related activities or what the
expected level of performance is.

The right hand hardly knows etc.

[Condi]

Mort7 said:

Condi 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.

Your post is complete nonsense, the police have a huge number of important jobs and the public are by no means the best people to decided which is most important. Neither do the police protect the human rights of criminals (thats a legal job), nor do they go about attempting to be seen as 'woke' (whatever you mean by that sentence). Finally, once we are free of the EU how does that change the budget, staff numbers, number of crimes, or priorities of the police in the UK?

You clearly haven't been reading much recently. Newspaper reports have been littered with stories of criminal's human rights being protected, to the frustration of those who have been their victims. I use the term 'woke' in it's accepted sense. Look it up. Once we are free of the EU we will no longer be bound by EU-wide laws which have been imposed upon us, and therefore the relative priorities which we apply to policing can be adapted to serve our particular needs.

Human rights cases is nothing to do with the police, they are dealt with by the legal profession. While that might frustrate the victims it still doesnt stop the police from doing their job of enforcing the law. I dont understand what affect you think human rights is having on policing?

I know what 'woke' means, but struggle to see how that is relevant? When have the police tried to be 'woke' at the expense of arresting suspects and investigating crime?

What EU laws have we had imposed on us - bearing in mind that policing is just enforcing the law, and not making it? What laws would you change to improve the rate of robberies, assault and such like?

And finally.... you are aware the police dont run the speed camera vans, right? So the man sat in the van is not doing so at the expense of investing a robbery.

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

Are you suggesting Condi doesn't know what the police do already?!

How ironic that would be. Not to mention hypocritical (Condi, not youPothole).

You were 1 min too late.

[Pothole]

turbobloke said:

Elroy Blue said:

Pothole said:

The majority of fraud is dealt with by Action Fraud, not your local force.

It's recorded by Action Fraud then sent to the appropriate Force to deal with

You're on the inside iirc. I think you've mentioned it but I could be wrong. Not being nosy just noting what I think I read previously.

What about ROCUs, NCA?

Headlines from relevant HMICFRS Report said:

The law enforcement response to fraud is disjointed and ineffective.
There is no national strategy for tackling fraud.

Roles and responsibilities are not clear.
Across police forces, regional organised crime units and national bodies, there is no
clear understanding of who is responsible for fraud-related activities or what the
expected level of performance is.

The right hand hardly knows etc.

I only know what little I do because I don't record fraud inside "my" force, I pass them to Action Fraud. I haven't a clue if they come back to be looked into as I'm not at that end of the process. I'll ask around. (call handlers also take care of almost all crime recording where I work).

[Rewe]

Mort7 said:

Lots of debate. Great!

Electro1980 said:

Mort7 said:

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'.

Answer me this:

How many people die or have life changing injuries each year as a result of burglaries, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour and vandalism, and how much do these crimes cost society?

How many people die or have life changing injuries each year as a result of speeding drivers, and how much does this cost society?

I can't quote the statistics. Can you? I do believe that most people would consider tackling violent crime and burglary to be of higher priority than catching someone at 85 mph on a clear motorway, or at 36 mph in an inappropriately low rural speed limit where there are no houses, which is where I see most speed cameras. They are concerned with raising revenue, not road safety. If safety was their primary concern then the cameras would be near schools and in towns and residential areas.

Condi said:

Mort7 said:

Rewe said:

Mort7 said:

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'.

Could you explain how you arrived at this bit because it doesn’t make any sense?

I'm not sure how I can simplify this further. Assaults, burglary, theft, vandalism, antisocial behaviour, etc have a profound effect on the victims, and detrimental effect on our society, which leads me to conclude that they should be prioritised over someone being insulted on Twitter, for example

I don’t disagree with you about this.

What I can’t work out, is why you think a Twitter spatter for example, will be triaged higher than any of the other crimes you have mentioned? What do you know that we don’t?

[Gargamel]

Pothole said:

Do you have a proposal which would make customers happy with the service? Can that be delivered with the current budget and officer numbers? How much do you know about the possible lines of inquiry around a cycle theft from outside the local shops, for instance? Take me through your idea of how, exactly, you would conduct an investigation which lead to an arrest. Give me an idea of how many officer hours that would use from end to end, then tell me it's as high priority as domestic assaults, murders, people wanting to jump off bridges, etc.

I'm not having a go, I'd like to understand what you know about the above, because you sound like you might know, or think you know, more than the average man in the street.

Ok this sounds, fun, and I assure you Pothole - I am happy to learn.

Bicycle is stolen. Lets say its a fairly typical 400 gbp mountain bike. It is stole from outside a Pharmacy. Re sale on the street is as low a 10gbp. Bike crime disproportionately affects kids and the poor, but for this example we will use a reasonable price bike.

Investigation. Happily there are four CCTV cameras nearby, all with different owners, all with a different memory etc. So lets figure 8 hours to gather the evidence, and then another 8 (one shift) to review it.

There might be some statements to collect, evidence such as a broken lock and possible recording of say post code stamp or other property marker. I will be generous and say another entire day.

So far, one copper - three days.

Assume something is found on the CCTV - or someone knows the perp and is willing to identify them, another full day to arrest, process and prepare a basic file for prosecution.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/18/police...

This article was why I started the thread.

These are some other stats about the effectiveness of the service.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/17/number...

Now at the start of the thread, I said I didn’t want to post stats, as I don’t want to bash the Police. I am genuinely interested in how as a society we support law and order, and reform/improve the service. I couldn’t give a st about one bike. But when I look at knife crime and rape, I am genuinely worried.

[williamp]

https://twitter.com/DCCJulieCooke/status/118439749...

Is the problem that the interests of the minority are taken more seriously the those of the majority?? I doubt most dont care about incorrect pronouns, and most wouldnot se them as a crime. Yes a senior police officer, in an official police broadcast is suggesting it should.

I agree about the Politics. The police shouod have been politicised, but they should not play politics either. PC pleb is another obvious example

[Bigends]

Pothole said:

turbobloke said:

Elroy Blue said:

Pothole said:

The majority of fraud is dealt with by Action Fraud, not your local force.

It's recorded by Action Fraud then sent to the appropriate Force to deal with

You're on the inside iirc. I think you've mentioned it but I could be wrong. Not being nosy just noting what I think I read previously.

What about ROCUs, NCA?

Headlines from relevant HMICFRS Report said:

The law enforcement response to fraud is disjointed and ineffective.
There is no national strategy for tackling fraud.

Roles and responsibilities are not clear.
Across police forces, regional organised crime units and national bodies, there is no
clear understanding of who is responsible for fraud-related activities or what the
expected level of performance is.

The right hand hardly knows etc.

I only know what little I do because I don't record fraud inside "my" force, I pass them to Action Fraud. I haven't a clue if they come back to be looked into as I'm not at that end of the process. I'll ask around. (call handlers also take care of almost all crime recording where I work).

All fraud is recorded by the NFIB - Police only record investigations - this may be on the crime system but they arent counted as crimes.. Once the NFIB have taken a look at the job - they pass the job out to the force where the suspect resides. Police will only deal initially under certain circumstances i.e where the suspect has already been arrested by Police, theres a call for service or theres a known local suspect. My force probably had a handful a week returned by the NFIB to investigate.

[Derek Smith]

Mort7 said:

Lots of debate. Great!

Electro1980 said:

Mort7 said:

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'.

Answer me this:

How many people die or have life changing injuries each year as a result of burglaries, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour and vandalism, and how much do these crimes cost society?

How many people die or have life changing injuries each year as a result of speeding drivers, and how much does this cost society?

I can't quote the statistics. Can you? I do believe that most people would consider tackling violent crime and burglary to be of higher priority than catching someone at 85 mph on a clear motorway, or at 36 mph in an inappropriately low rural speed limit where there are no houses, which is where I see most speed cameras. They are concerned with raising revenue, not road safety. If safety was their primary concern then the cameras would be near schools and in towns and residential areas.

Condi 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.

Your post is complete nonsense, the police have a huge number of important jobs and the public are by no means the best people to decided which is most important. Neither do the police protect the human rights of criminals (thats a legal job), nor do they go about attempting to be seen as 'woke' (whatever you mean by that sentence). Finally, once we are free of the EU how does that change the budget, staff numbers, number of crimes, or priorities of the police in the UK?

You clearly haven't been reading much recently. Newspaper reports have been littered with stories of criminal's human rights being protected, to the frustration of those who have been their victims. I use the term 'woke' in it's accepted sense. Look it up. Once we are free of the EU we will no longer be bound by EU-wide laws which have been imposed upon us, and therefore the relative priorities which we apply to policing can be adapted to serve our particular needs.

Rewe said:

Mort7 said:

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'.

Could you explain how you arrived at this bit because it doesn’t make any sense?

I'm not sure how I can simplify this further. Assaults, burglary, theft, vandalism, antisocial behaviour, etc have a profound effect on the victims, and detrimental effect on our society, which leads me to conclude that they should be prioritised over someone being insulted on Twitter, for example

I looked up woke, as you suggested, and discovered that it means, in its accepted sense, 'alert to injustice in society, especially racism', and 'aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)'. What it doesn't explain is why it is used as an insult to the police service. One would hop that the police will be alert to injustice.

Assaults, burglary and theft are priorities and are resourced before Twitter posts. Camera vans are very low priority. My old medium sized police force has two, and they are not manned 24/7. And that old chestnut, that has been pointed out as incorrect time and time again, but to no avail; the police do not gain any revenue from speeding tickets. And leaving the EU will have little effect on policing. Indeed, most of the aspects of policing that many find frustrating are domestic.

Posters suggest that MPs are disconnected from 'real' policing. However, a quick glance through this thread shows that in this they reflect the general population.

[Trevor555]

Gargamel said:

Bicycle is stolen.

Now at the start of the thread, I said I didn’t want to post stats, as I don’t want to bash the Police. I am genuinely interested in how as a society we support law and order, and reform/improve the service. I couldn’t give a st about one bike. But when I look at knife crime and rape, I am genuinely worried.

Since you mentioned bike crime.

It's out of control in my town.

The Police don't patrol in the town. The thieves are walking around with bolt croppers, no stop/search going on to prevent them. And as you've said, the Police wont take the time to view CCTV etc etc...

The poor owner is just given a crime number over the phone.

Now you see I said "poor owner"

That bike is probably their transport, they might not be able to run a car, or have the money to replace their bike.

They may replace that bike for it to get stolen the following week by the same thief.

Then one day the owner catches the thief and kicks the scheiss out of him.

The victim is now the one that'll face the law for assault because the crimes are being left unchallenged.

And the victim who cant afford to run a car, has no bike, and now a criminal record.

All because our local force wont tackle the problem.

Years ago they'd have set up a small team to knock it on the head (ask me how I know this, I was part of it)

Our local force (sorry, service) is failing our town center.

No patrols, and zero parking enforcement.

Policing shouldn't be about budgets, it should be about fighting crime/enforcing the rules.... Big or small..

Bicycle theft may seem petty to some, but not to the victims.

So my answer to the OP's original question is no. They aren't doing all of the job anymore.

Edited by Trevor555 on Wednesday 19th February 19:22