The media really ***** me off sometimes

darkgen · 26 Aug 2017 at 11:07

Quite. Access to policing should be universal. Mind boggles at some of those articles.

Woden · 26 Aug 2017 at 11:11

Dolph said:
They have choices, this is the one they have chosen. It should be criticised the same as it would be if they declared they were not going to investigate crimes as thoroughly where the victim is disabled, or poor, for example.

Remember, this is about investigating crime, not supporting victims of crime. The right to have your crime investigated should not be altered by arbitrary factors in any way.

It doesn't say they won't be investigated, just that they prioritise the more vulnerable when it comes to face to face visits.

I am perfectly capable of talking to an officer over the phone, but the elderly or disabled may not be. If they can't report or give a statement, they won't get equal access will they?

Dolph · 26 Aug 2017 at 11:23

Woden said:
It doesn't say they won't be investigated, just that they prioritise the more vulnerable when it comes to face to face visits.

I am perfectly capable of talking to an officer over the phone, but the elderly or disabled may not be. If they can't report or give a statement, they won't get equal access will they?

This isn't about ensuring equality of access though, it is about declining parts of the service based on arbitrary factors.

Do you think all the crimes will get the same priority?

Woden · 26 Aug 2017 at 11:40

Dolph said:
This isn't about ensuring equality of access though, it is about declining parts of the service based on arbitrary factors.

Do you think all the crimes will get the same priority?

If they can't leave a statement? No, definitely not.

Dolph · 26 Aug 2017 at 11:47

Woden said:
If they can't leave a statement? No, definitely not.

As I said earlier, turn it around. Would it be acceptable for a disabled person to receive a lower prospect of resolution through deliberate inaction and a policy of different treatment?

If the answer to that is no, then the idea that it should apply to any arbitrary reason must also hold true.

x-st · 26 Aug 2017 at 11:48

Dolph said:
This isn't about ensuring equality of access though, it is about declining parts of the service based on arbitrary factors.

So much this. I'm all for triaging crime to ascertain where resources are best spent, but then adding in a variable which is unrelated to bump up the "severity" scale seems not to be addressing the actual severity of the crime in the first place.

CorrectHorseBattery · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:09

You cannot say you support the cuts and then go the police should treat everyone equally. Clearly they can't do that anymore.

Dolph · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:12

Gigabit said:
You cannot say you support the cuts and then go the police should treat everyone equally. Clearly they can't do that anymore.

Are you telling me there is literally no other way to reduce expenditure?

CREATIVE!11 · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:16

Gigabit said:
Because it's not like they're doing it because they want to clearly. It's actually about vulnerability with the elderly being at the top of the Met's list.

We shouldn't have to prioritise anyone but when the Government continues to say they care about security and then carries on cutting, things like this are inevitable.

This.

Title is just more race baiting...

VincentHanna · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:16

Dolph said:
Are you telling me there is literally no other way to reduce expenditure?

They already cut everything to the bone over the last 7 years.

Police here in Essex sold off half their police stations!

Dolph · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:35

VincentHanna said:
They already cut everything to the bone over the last 7 years.

Police here in Essex sold off half their police stations!

What's the bill for policing things like the nottinghill carnival again?

VincentHanna · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:38

Why single that out? What's the bill for any big event?

Caged · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:39

Organisation with limited resources explains how requests are triaged, Daily Heil writes an outrage piece. Water is wet, sky is blue, grass is green etc.

Dolph · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:40

VincentHanna said:
Why single that out? What's the bill for any big event?

Because it's this weekend? Take protest rallies and other events into it as well. The police spend a fortune indulging small sections of the population whose events attract an even smaller criminal element at vast costs...

VincentHanna · 26 Aug 2017 at 12:41

2 million people attending isnt exactly a small section of the population.

V F · 26 Aug 2017 at 16:17

Gigabit said:
Telegraph and the Mail today having a go at the Met for prioritising those with English as a second language. "Fury" at this they say.

They wouldn't possibly say the Met are having to do this because of the ridiculous Goverment cuts now would they. That's just too truthful.

The media really stars you out eh... Why even read it? You know it is quite a cleansing when you take nothing to do with what the media post, right?

dowie · 26 Aug 2017 at 16:38

Kenai said:
I suspect there is an element of drawing attention to a lack of resources by highlighting it with an issue he knows will get tabloids frothing to make a drama out of it.

indeed, it does seem like a political move by the chief

Freakbro said:
Better than arbitrarily deciding not to investigate burglaries of odd numbered houses.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...tigate-burglaries-at-even-numbered-homes.html

I'm not sure it is, in both cases you're providing less of a service to some people relative to others though in that case you're randomising it (sort of) whereas in this case you're making a subjective call re: certain characteristics of a person (which may or may not be valid)

Though the OP getting angry at the media is a bit bizarre, this policy decision is legitimate to report on and for people to publish opinions or be critical of.

Woden · 26 Aug 2017 at 16:49

dowie said:
Though the OP getting angry at the media is a bit bizarre, this policy decision is legitimate to report on and for people to publish opinions or be critical of.

Because the headline it's aimed purely at causing racial division. Why target non English speaking, when the chief mentions the disabled and elderly first?

Dolph · 26 Aug 2017 at 17:01

VincentHanna said:
2 million people attending isnt exactly a small section of the population.

The numbers vary between 1 and 2 million depending on source, but even at 2 million people, taking in to account the 2 day duration, it is still a disportionate spend.

The cost of policing last year was approx 8 million.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...ggyMAU&usg=AFQjCNHLjTB7gNV0whlJROX_mHHohwZFsA

Total policing budget for the UK is 11bn

https://fullfact.org/crime/police-funding-england-and-wales/

So per person per day policing budget is 11bn divided by 67 million x 365, which is roughly 45p per head per day.

If the festival costs 8 million to police the 2 million attendees over 2 days, that works out at £2 per head per day, or an additional £1.55, so that is a hugely disproportionate spend for the two days...

dowie · 26 Aug 2017 at 17:05

Woden said:
Because the headline it's aimed purely at causing racial division. Why target non English speaking, when the chief mentions the disabled and elderly first?

because the disabled and elderly are probably more understandable things to prioritise, sure I can see why for non-English speakers too but it is a bit more trivial and if they're getting a significantly different level of service then it is worthy of criticism. I don't think the articles on the other hand are trying to be critical of the elderly getting some level of priority

The media really ***** me off sometimes

Mobster