Theresa May speaking at the Plod federation conference
Discussion
Elroy Blue said:
Or you can pick and choose only figures that are going down.
Of course, you don't mention the rampant fraud figures that aren't recorded.
Crime is down. Crime is down. Keep saying it. Anybody involved in the criminal justice system will tell you otherwise.
Now let's talk about the 90% of our time doing other agencies that doesn't involve crime at all.
See above!Of course, you don't mention the rampant fraud figures that aren't recorded.
Crime is down. Crime is down. Keep saying it. Anybody involved in the criminal justice system will tell you otherwise.
Now let's talk about the 90% of our time doing other agencies that doesn't involve crime at all.
sidicks said:
I think that history has shown that, when 'reform' is managed within the public sector, the focus is often on improving their own terms and conditions, rather than introduce change that will improve the service to the public!
Turkeys don't vote for Xmas. However, here, it would be improving conditions. Police officers love doing what the public think they are doing / should be doing. If you give the police officer / a team of officers the opportunity to run around catching burglars, those using cars in crime and other 'road wars' type examples, you find yourself with a highly motivated group of officers who love the fact they've helped prevent someone being a victim of a burglary. It doesn't have to be as thrilling as that. A team of detectives who can be left alone to focus on targeting the worst domestic violence offenders are literally preventing murders and will derive great job satisfaction from that. No police officer is motivated by being sat with a mental health patient waiting ages for an ambulance that has more important things to be attending or to sort out a Facebook argument between two idiots.
What was needed and is needed is reform that comes from the top down. There isn't sufficient internal autonomy to redefine what the police should and shouldn't be doing to the laws, regulation and structures that are produced, supported and enforced by the Home Office. Any meaningful change needs to come from them.
I'd rather do fewer things well than everything averagely.
La Liga said:
urkeys don't vote for Xmas.
However, here, it would be improving conditions. Police officers love doing what the public think they are doing / should be doing. If you give the police officer / a team of officers the opportunity to run around catching burglars, those using cars in crime and other 'road wars' type examples, you find yourself with a highly motivated group of officers who love the fact they've helped prevent someone being a victim of a burglary. It doesn't have to be as thrilling as that. A team of detectives who can be left alone to focus on targeting the worst domestic violence offenders are literally preventing murders and will derive great job satisfaction from that. No police officer is motivated by being sat with a mental health patient waiting ages for an ambulance that has more important things to be attending or to sort out a Facebook argument between two idiots.
What was needed and is needed is reform that comes from the top down. There isn't sufficient internal autonomy to redefine what the police should and shouldn't be doing to the laws, regulation and structures that are produced, supported and enforced by the Home Office. Any meaningful change needs to come from them.
I'd rather do fewer things well than everything averagely.
In fairness, my experience about public sector reform is less applicable to the police.However, here, it would be improving conditions. Police officers love doing what the public think they are doing / should be doing. If you give the police officer / a team of officers the opportunity to run around catching burglars, those using cars in crime and other 'road wars' type examples, you find yourself with a highly motivated group of officers who love the fact they've helped prevent someone being a victim of a burglary. It doesn't have to be as thrilling as that. A team of detectives who can be left alone to focus on targeting the worst domestic violence offenders are literally preventing murders and will derive great job satisfaction from that. No police officer is motivated by being sat with a mental health patient waiting ages for an ambulance that has more important things to be attending or to sort out a Facebook argument between two idiots.
What was needed and is needed is reform that comes from the top down. There isn't sufficient internal autonomy to redefine what the police should and shouldn't be doing to the laws, regulation and structures that are produced, supported and enforced by the Home Office. Any meaningful change needs to come from them.
I'd rather do fewer things well than everything averagely.
Also, I think we could recruit more police officers within the same budget if we weren't paying so much for their pensions!!
La Liga said:
Public sector pensions you say? If only someone would make a topic on it 
La Liga said:
If the coalition were as keen to reform what the police actually do as they were to reform pay and conditions when they came into power we may be in a better situation than we are now.
Quite possibly!La Liga said:
urkeys don't vote for Xmas.
However, here, it would be improving conditions. Police officers love doing what the public think they are doing / should be doing. If you give the police officer / a team of officers the opportunity to run around catching burglars, those using cars in crime and other 'road wars' type examples, you find yourself with a highly motivated group of officers who love the fact they've helped prevent someone being a victim of a burglary. It doesn't have to be as thrilling as that. A team of detectives who can be left alone to focus on targeting the worst domestic violence offenders are literally preventing murders and will derive great job satisfaction from that. No police officer is motivated by being sat with a mental health patient waiting ages for an ambulance that has more important things to be attending or to sort out a Facebook argument between two idiots.
What was needed and is needed is reform that comes from the top down. There isn't sufficient internal autonomy to redefine what the police should and shouldn't be doing to the laws, regulation and structures that are produced, supported and enforced by the Home Office. Any meaningful change needs to come from them.
I'd rather do fewer things well than everything averagely.
Sums it up very well. However, here, it would be improving conditions. Police officers love doing what the public think they are doing / should be doing. If you give the police officer / a team of officers the opportunity to run around catching burglars, those using cars in crime and other 'road wars' type examples, you find yourself with a highly motivated group of officers who love the fact they've helped prevent someone being a victim of a burglary. It doesn't have to be as thrilling as that. A team of detectives who can be left alone to focus on targeting the worst domestic violence offenders are literally preventing murders and will derive great job satisfaction from that. No police officer is motivated by being sat with a mental health patient waiting ages for an ambulance that has more important things to be attending or to sort out a Facebook argument between two idiots.
What was needed and is needed is reform that comes from the top down. There isn't sufficient internal autonomy to redefine what the police should and shouldn't be doing to the laws, regulation and structures that are produced, supported and enforced by the Home Office. Any meaningful change needs to come from them.
I'd rather do fewer things well than everything averagely.
The last bit of reform, back in '84, was underfunded of course, and had a number of glaring faults but it was, more or less, made to work and it became, after a settling in period, a vast improvement. That's more than 30 years ago. here was, generally, support for it across parliament as a whole - who else remembers consensus politics - and it was also supported generally by the police service.
The police had to sacrifice some powers that were useful and whilst the overall package was great I think, some aspects did have negative results.
The police could cope with a more, much more, than 20% slashing of its budget but that would mean reform by the HO, and no government has had to bottle to take that one.
BlackLabel said:
Looks like today's political subject is going to be police cuts. Karen Bradley the culture secretary just had a nightmare encounter on good morning Britain as she was repeatedly asked if the number of armed police is up or down. She refused to answer.
She was at the Diane Abbott level of abject. 
Derek Smith said:
Sums it up very well.
The last bit of reform, back in '84, was underfunded of course, and had a number of glaring faults but it was, more or less, made to work and it became, after a settling in period, a vast improvement. That's more than 30 years ago. here was, generally, support for it across parliament as a whole - who else remembers consensus politics - and it was also supported generally by the police service.
The police had to sacrifice some powers that were useful and whilst the overall package was great I think, some aspects did have negative results.
The police could cope with a more, much more, than 20% slashing of its budget but that would mean reform by the HO, and no government has had to bottle to take that one.
If only more of our taxes were spent on police services rather than on subsiding police pensions - maybe we'd be able to afford another 20,000 officers in that case?!The last bit of reform, back in '84, was underfunded of course, and had a number of glaring faults but it was, more or less, made to work and it became, after a settling in period, a vast improvement. That's more than 30 years ago. here was, generally, support for it across parliament as a whole - who else remembers consensus politics - and it was also supported generally by the police service.
The police had to sacrifice some powers that were useful and whilst the overall package was great I think, some aspects did have negative results.
The police could cope with a more, much more, than 20% slashing of its budget but that would mean reform by the HO, and no government has had to bottle to take that one.
eccles said:
sidicks said:
If only more of our taxes were spent on police services rather than on subsiding police pensions - maybe we'd be able to afford another 20,000 officers in that case?!
I'd really love to know the percentage of your posts that mention or are about public sector pensions! 
She has picked a very specific set of circumstances there to make cops look bad, very few people will fall into that bracket moving up increments from being a brand new starter.
Theres a hell of a lot more people like me who have been at the top of the pay scales since before 2010 and take home less than they did in 2010.
Theres a hell of a lot more people like me who have been at the top of the pay scales since before 2010 and take home less than they did in 2010.
ED209 said:
She has picked a very specific set of circumstances there to make cops look bad, very few people will fall into that bracket moving up increments from being a brand new starter.
Theres a hell of a lot more people like me who have been at the top of the pay scales since before 2010 and take home less than they did in 2010.
Politicians always do. If there was a single person in that position, then she is not lying.Theres a hell of a lot more people like me who have been at the top of the pay scales since before 2010 and take home less than they did in 2010.
BlackLabel said:
Don't the proposed boundary changes do just that? (600 from 650)Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff