The reality of police cuts
Discussion
Tony Melville hangs up his hat:
[url[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/27/gloucestershire-chief-constable-quits-police[/url]
It would appear that his force has had a 24% cut already with still more to come.
The 'back-room' job figure of 25,000 is brought out time and again. What happens to these jobs when the police are put out onto the street? Do they think that little elves come out at night to complete them?
A chief constable who didn't toe the official line of everything is fine. He probably would have been sacked if he'd stayed on.
[url[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/27/gloucestershire-chief-constable-quits-police[/url]
It would appear that his force has had a 24% cut already with still more to come.
The 'back-room' job figure of 25,000 is brought out time and again. What happens to these jobs when the police are put out onto the street? Do they think that little elves come out at night to complete them?
A chief constable who didn't toe the official line of everything is fine. He probably would have been sacked if he'd stayed on.
I'm not defending the level of the cuts in this specific case- I'm in a position of ignorance with regards to the details throughout.
Having said that, I would imagine any organisation asked to make cuts, having spent a long time without giving too much regard to resources, is going to find the transition difficult. The danger of giving organisations, particularly public bodies (if history teaches us anything), carte blanch to spend, is that they soon become bloated and inefficient. Sadly, when you live beyond your means and don't adapt quickly enough, the fall from grace is going to be harder and faster than if action had been taken sooner.
Whilst the level of the cuts throughout government may seem high, is there evidence that the levels to which they're falling would have been unreasonable per se, had the budgets been more sensibly looked at in the past?
The government employs too many people and gives them too good conditions, and this has to change. If it's not from one service, it'll have to be from another, and turkeys have never voted for Christmas.
Having said that, I would imagine any organisation asked to make cuts, having spent a long time without giving too much regard to resources, is going to find the transition difficult. The danger of giving organisations, particularly public bodies (if history teaches us anything), carte blanch to spend, is that they soon become bloated and inefficient. Sadly, when you live beyond your means and don't adapt quickly enough, the fall from grace is going to be harder and faster than if action had been taken sooner.
Whilst the level of the cuts throughout government may seem high, is there evidence that the levels to which they're falling would have been unreasonable per se, had the budgets been more sensibly looked at in the past?
The government employs too many people and gives them too good conditions, and this has to change. If it's not from one service, it'll have to be from another, and turkeys have never voted for Christmas.
10 Pence Short said:
I'm not defending the level of the cuts in this specific case- I'm in a position of ignorance with regards to the details throughout.
Having said that, I would imagine any organisation asked to make cuts, having spent a long time without giving too much regard to resources, is going to find the transition difficult. The danger of giving organisations, particularly public bodies (if history teaches us anything), carte blanch to spend, is that they soon become bloated and inefficient. Sadly, when you live beyond your means and don't adapt quickly enough, the fall from grace is going to be harder and faster than if action had been taken sooner.
Whilst the level of the cuts throughout government may seem high, is there evidence that the levels to which they're falling would have been unreasonable per se, had the budgets been more sensibly looked at in the past?
The government employs too many people and gives them too good conditions, and this has to change. If it's not from one service, it'll have to be from another, and turkeys have never voted for Christmas.
That there is the problem.Having said that, I would imagine any organisation asked to make cuts, having spent a long time without giving too much regard to resources, is going to find the transition difficult. The danger of giving organisations, particularly public bodies (if history teaches us anything), carte blanch to spend, is that they soon become bloated and inefficient. Sadly, when you live beyond your means and don't adapt quickly enough, the fall from grace is going to be harder and faster than if action had been taken sooner.
Whilst the level of the cuts throughout government may seem high, is there evidence that the levels to which they're falling would have been unreasonable per se, had the budgets been more sensibly looked at in the past?
The government employs too many people and gives them too good conditions, and this has to change. If it's not from one service, it'll have to be from another, and turkeys have never voted for Christmas.
From schools, hospitals, to councils, police, whatever, if they haven't had to make a profit or justify their existence financially over the past few years they will be unable to reduce outgoings.
Then they mostly get all cross and strike-ey when they are forced to become more efficient.
I'm on a response team, we have lost half off our officers all ready. All transfered into squads to partly justify the excistance of the bosses.
We still have the same amount of calls to go to.
Its just that we dont patrol any more. We just take calls.
It would be helpful is
a. the public called us when its really an emergency.
b. the call centre weeded out the crap and all sent us to emergency calls or something slighty police related.
We still have the same amount of calls to go to.
Its just that we dont patrol any more. We just take calls.
It would be helpful is
a. the public called us when its really an emergency.
b. the call centre weeded out the crap and all sent us to emergency calls or something slighty police related.
10 Pence Short said:
Having said that, I would imagine any organisation asked to make cuts, having spent a long time without giving too much regard to resources, is going to find the transition difficult. The danger of giving organisations, particularly public bodies (if history teaches us anything), carte blanch to spend, is that they soon become bloated and inefficient. Sadly, when you live beyond your means and don't adapt quickly enough, the fall from grace is going to be harder and faster than if action had been taken sooner.
Whilst the level of the cuts throughout government may seem high, is there evidence that the levels to which they're falling would have been unreasonable per se, had the budgets been more sensibly looked at in the past?
The government employs too many people and gives them too good conditions, and this has to change. If it's not from one service, it'll have to be from another, and turkeys have never voted for Christmas.
I was made inspector in 1990. In that time I have had to deal with cuts to manpower in every department I've been in, and that includes, indeed mainly was, response. There has been a steady draining of resources. One major problem is that the demand has increased year on year. I was in control rooms and mobile phones all but doubled demand in 3 years.Whilst the level of the cuts throughout government may seem high, is there evidence that the levels to which they're falling would have been unreasonable per se, had the budgets been more sensibly looked at in the past?
The government employs too many people and gives them too good conditions, and this has to change. If it's not from one service, it'll have to be from another, and turkeys have never voted for Christmas.
I was in a process unit for a couple of years. In that time we had to cope with drastic cuts, around 10%, in budget. We managed it.
Since I retired in 2005 the demand for cuts has increased. To cope with this my old force rectuited retired officers at basic plus a few % and expenses to do 'just jobs', freeing up PCs to respond to calls. It was a way of coping with cuts. But then they had the most recent swingeing cuts so the first to go were those on short term contracts.
To suggest, as you do, that the police have had no regard to resources is not true. I had the last fifteen of them doing just that.
Further, you suggest I think that the police had too good condition. I have a friend who is a crime author. She asked if she could visit Brighton polsta to see what a real police station was like. My chief super was more than happy for this to happen and asked to meet her as he'd read one of her books (I gave it to him). His first question was: what do you think of my station? Her reply was: It is so squalid.
Not, you notice, too good conditions.
I enjoyed most of my time in the police. I would not do it now though as the guys work all the time. There is no rest, no time for what I would call real police work. They just respond, write, and report. They have my admiration but not my envy.
I never had to worry about budgets until I was promoted. The early Thatcher years were fun but mid-term and later this carte blance you talk of had disappeared into the background. Certainly from 87, the time of my second promotion to sergeant, I managed a budget that was tight.
The papers suggest wasteage. There might well be some but certainly not in any dept I worked in. There was a smaller budget each year for five years in control rooms. When I was in charge of the criving school one of the students ran over the metal pipe of the vacuum cleaner we used to clean the cars. I had to wait eight months for a replacement as there was no money in the (reduced) kitty.
The Home Office demanded that we change call signs. The cost of the software upgrade ran into thousands. When the HMIC asked why the department had not followed directions, they were told that it was down for the following year. There was no room in the CR budget for such an upgrade.
Don't believe the press hype and 'leaks' from the spin doctors. The one constant since I was promoted a second time to sergeant has been reducing budgets, not only in real terms but in actual money.
In about 1985 there were major changes to the control rooms to cut costs of staffing, then as now a major cost. It would take 7 years to get any savings. The HO then gave directions which meant that the they had to be changed again and the only way of coping with this was major restructuring. This time it would take five years (I can't remember the actual time) but if you took into account the debt from the previous reorganisation it would take double that.
A rape took place on a Sunday early hours. A DC, who had worked late turn on Friday (knocking off at 9pm) was called back in as it was cheaper than calling in someone on leave. He phoned me at 9 am for advice on identification procedures. I went in (without pay of course) to assist and left around midday. He had to continue working until 2 pm when the late turn was detailed to turn up. This was a serious offence yet one bloke had to deal due to budget limits. This was 2002 and things got a lot worse before the swingeing cuts started.
The cuts have been going on for years. The carte blanche ended once the miners went back down the pits.
The problem is, the police see good reasons why their budgets shouldn't be cut, there are screams of protest if anyone even thinks of not increasing the NHS budget, you can't cut education because of the children, reducing housing benefit below £2k per month is social cleansing, any reduction of other benefits is seen as an attack on the most needy in society...
You can't keep taxing the rich to pay for the things people want, and the not so rich aren't keen on paying significantly more, so what's the answer? Borrow more?
You can't keep taxing the rich to pay for the things people want, and the not so rich aren't keen on paying significantly more, so what's the answer? Borrow more?
RYH64E said:
The problem is, the police see good reasons why their budgets shouldn't be cut, there are screams of protest if anyone even thinks of not increasing the NHS budget, you can't cut education because of the children, reducing housing benefit below £2k per month is social cleansing, any reduction of other benefits is seen as an attack on the most needy in society...
You can't keep taxing the rich to pay for the things people want, and the not so rich aren't keen on paying significantly more, so what's the answer? Borrow more?
Who has suggested that the police budget shouldn't be cut?You can't keep taxing the rich to pay for the things people want, and the not so rich aren't keen on paying significantly more, so what's the answer? Borrow more?
The answer to me is to stop telling lies. Instead of suggesting there are 25,000 police officers doing nothing in 'back rooms', admit that cutting budgets will remove police officers from the streets. Admit that the police haven't been swanning about in flash cars. Stop talking about massive overtime. But then that is unlikely to happen.
So admit that there is a need to cut the responsbilities of the police. Tell the courts and CPS that the demands on files should be reduced, must be reduced. A 20%+ cut is massive, absolutely dramatic, for any department let alone one where the vast majority of the money is spent on manpower. But that won't happen either. Give the police time.
Do away with elected police chiefs. If it is a good idea then good, but can we wait until we can afford it.
Do away with elected mayors.
The only quangos that have been cut are those that protect the consumer. Get rid of some of the other ones, with the wags on them.
If we have enough money to throw away on Vodaphone and other similar gifts to the rich companies.
Derek Smith said:
If we have enough money to throw away on Vodaphone and other similar gifts to the rich companies.
We didn't throw any money away on Vodafone - quite the opposite in fact. HMRC wrongfully pursued Vodafone for money they didn't own (the tax rules in question were unlawful). Vodafone ended up paying what HMRC were demanding (the £6 billion figures were fantasy) as they couldn't hang on until the European courts made a decision. Afterwards the EU did make a decision proving that Vodafone had been correct and HMRC were in the wrong all along.Go and look how many extra laws have been introduced in the last ten years.
Go and ask your local NHS authority why it is they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local mental health teams why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Social Services why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Highways Agency what roles they are deciding to relinquish (guess who picks up the slack)
I could go on and on.
We are expected to take on more and more roles. This would be impossible even without the loss of Officer numbers. We are losing tens of thousands. Major cities are lucky if they have Response Officer numbers in double figures. We have now lost the typists, the tape transcribers, the file preperation people. All these roles are now done by the Officer. As a one fingered typist, it takes me hours to do an 30 minute interview. It'd take a typist a few minutes. We've lost all our admin staff. Our equipment is old and falling to pieces.
My department is losing 20% of its staff. Yet our responsibilities are increasing.
This isn't just trimming the fat. The whole thing will implode in the next few years and G4S and Reliant will step forward with all their recently recruited dog handlers, investigators and firearms Officers and say 'we'll do it for you' (for profit of course)
Go and ask your local NHS authority why it is they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local mental health teams why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Social Services why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Highways Agency what roles they are deciding to relinquish (guess who picks up the slack)
I could go on and on.
We are expected to take on more and more roles. This would be impossible even without the loss of Officer numbers. We are losing tens of thousands. Major cities are lucky if they have Response Officer numbers in double figures. We have now lost the typists, the tape transcribers, the file preperation people. All these roles are now done by the Officer. As a one fingered typist, it takes me hours to do an 30 minute interview. It'd take a typist a few minutes. We've lost all our admin staff. Our equipment is old and falling to pieces.
My department is losing 20% of its staff. Yet our responsibilities are increasing.
This isn't just trimming the fat. The whole thing will implode in the next few years and G4S and Reliant will step forward with all their recently recruited dog handlers, investigators and firearms Officers and say 'we'll do it for you' (for profit of course)
Elroy Blue said:
Go and look how many extra laws have been introduced in the last ten years.
Go and ask your local NHS authority why it is they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local mental health teams why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Social Services why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Highways Agency what roles they are deciding to relinquish (guess who picks up the slack)
I could go on and on.
We are expected to take on more and more roles. This would be impossible even without the loss of Officer numbers. We are losing tens of thousands. Major cities are lucky if they have Response Officer numbers in double figures. We have now lost the typists, the tape transcribers, the file preperation people. All these roles are now done by the Officer. As a one fingered typist, it takes me hours to do an 30 minute interview. It'd take a typist a few minutes. We've lost all our admin staff. Our equipment is old and falling to pieces.
My department is losing 20% of its staff. Yet our responsibilities are increasing.
This isn't just trimming the fat. The whole thing will implode in the next few years and G4S and Reliant will step forward with all their recently recruited dog handlers, investigators and firearms Officers and say 'we'll do it for you' (for profit of course)
I was at a meal on Thursday where the hosts had children in the police. The woman had a son and daughter-in-law in England and the other, the bloke's son, recently transfered to Canada - RCMP - from the Mets. Go and ask your local NHS authority why it is they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local mental health teams why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Social Services why they can say 'nothing to do with us guv' (The Police can't)
Go and ask your local Highways Agency what roles they are deciding to relinquish (guess who picks up the slack)
I could go on and on.
We are expected to take on more and more roles. This would be impossible even without the loss of Officer numbers. We are losing tens of thousands. Major cities are lucky if they have Response Officer numbers in double figures. We have now lost the typists, the tape transcribers, the file preperation people. All these roles are now done by the Officer. As a one fingered typist, it takes me hours to do an 30 minute interview. It'd take a typist a few minutes. We've lost all our admin staff. Our equipment is old and falling to pieces.
My department is losing 20% of its staff. Yet our responsibilities are increasing.
This isn't just trimming the fat. The whole thing will implode in the next few years and G4S and Reliant will step forward with all their recently recruited dog handlers, investigators and firearms Officers and say 'we'll do it for you' (for profit of course)
The talk got around to my writing and I mentioned that I was a touch typist - I was in the print before joining the police. I was told the daughter-in-law is taking touch typing lessons as she reckons this skill will help get her promoted.
She spends the vast majority of her time typing reorts as the support staff have all been sacked. She now spends hardly any time on patrol yet is shown as a patrol officer. Husband, det serge, is leaving the force to do private work with a solicitor's firm - more money of course, better conditions, shorter hours, day work mostly, no being called in at short notice, only occasionally beig on call, but even then being paid for it. And little chance of getting injured again. He'll do a stint at the Olympics. Excellent pay for doing very little.
It's a shame for the chap. I met him a few years ago, just before his promotion, and he reminded me of me when I was his age. A bit like Tigger, my wife reckoned, for both of us. Very keen, excited by his promotion and talking about getting back into CID. A graduate. Intelligent. Fit. And soon no longer a police officer.
All the steps forward that happened in my time, with civvy support groups putting PCs out on patrol again as quickly as possible, have gone.
I still see some old colleages. Most are coming up to retirement age now. Most, if not all, can't wait to leave. I'm told that the fire brigade and the ambulance service are dumping some of their roles onto the police as well. Not sure what these are as this was part of a bigger conversation. Any idea?
It appears to an outsider that the situation is near breaking point. Lots and lots of work is being ignored. Serious crime is being sleeved despite possible arrests as there is no one to deal. These are serious robberies. PCs are running some investigations that a few years ago would have had a DI taking control.
Quote: I spend my time on the phone telling people why we are not attending. I'm not allowed to say we have no one available.
Welcome to policing Cameron style.
The fear is that this year's riots will not be policed to anything like the number of officers that attended last year. Mutual aid is very iffy as there is no one to send in any case. Vehicles are not being replaced. Equipment that breaks is equipment that is lost. Officers are handing in various tickets: PSU, firearms, driving.
There are quotes galore from the government of 25,000 officers in back room jobs. The funny thing is that since the cuts this number has increased at the expense of patrol.
With all these cuts, shame we can't cut crime by 20%, along with frackwittery. That would help.
The Guild of Thieves, Cutpurses and Allied Trades is distinguished from thieves' guilds in other fantasy universes by being completely legal. The Thieves' Guild was established early in Lord Havelock Vetinari's rule of Ankh-Morpork. Lord Vetinari realised that what people crave is stability, and that, while it is impossible to stamp out crime altogether, it is possible to regulate it. The major gang leaders of the city were therefore called to the Patrician's Palace, where they agreed to be held responsible for ensuring a socially acceptable number of thefts. While they may have been insincere in this promise, they soon found the Patrician knew too much about them for reneging to be safe.
The Guild of Thieves, Cutpurses and Allied Trades is distinguished from thieves' guilds in other fantasy universes by being completely legal. The Thieves' Guild was established early in Lord Havelock Vetinari's rule of Ankh-Morpork. Lord Vetinari realised that what people crave is stability, and that, while it is impossible to stamp out crime altogether, it is possible to regulate it. The major gang leaders of the city were therefore called to the Patrician's Palace, where they agreed to be held responsible for ensuring a socially acceptable number of thefts. While they may have been insincere in this promise, they soon found the Patrician knew too much about them for reneging to be safe.
Elroy Blue said:
<snip>
This isn't just trimming the fat. The whole thing will implode in the next few years and G4S and Reliant will step forward with all their recently recruited dog handlers, investigators and firearms Officers and say 'we'll do it for you' (for profit of course)
I think that is exactly whats going on - setting up privatisation of the police force. More palatable to the people than privatisation of any of the other massive public bodies?This isn't just trimming the fat. The whole thing will implode in the next few years and G4S and Reliant will step forward with all their recently recruited dog handlers, investigators and firearms Officers and say 'we'll do it for you' (for profit of course)
This, in my opinion is a mistake of galactic proportions. Still, doesn't matter to those in charge, they'll be comfortable enough and detached from all the problems that this will cause.
In my opinion, the incest between media and government is but a side show to what must go on behind closed doors between government and industry.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff