But it is related to the crime or incident. The victim's needs should be taken into account and a victim who is deemed to be particularly vulnerable or requires additional reassurance or other help, safeguards etc should receive that. Someone who doesn't really need follow-up visits or to be put in touch with support services needn't be offered them.
The media really ***** me off sometimes
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
But it is related to the crime or incident. The victim's needs should be taken into account and a victim who is deemed to be particularly vulnerable or requires additional reassurance or other help, safeguards etc should receive that. Someone who doesn't really need follow-up visits or to be put in touch with support services needn't be offered them.
So rather than arbitrarily allowing elderly and disabled people access to the service, you want to charge a fee based on an arbitrary attendance figure?
Are they organising an event that will require additional policing to be safe? If so, then it would need to be paid for.
You are missing the point. It is not about providing an enhanced service to those deemed to meet arbitrary criteria. The proposal reduces service for those who do not meet an arbitrary criteria.
Rather than arbitrarily discriminate against victims of crime, I want to charge those who choose to organise events that increase crime.
A carnival, a football match or a protest March are events that are organised, they are a choice. As such, the organisers should be responsible for the costs.
The left who hold the violent protests in London tend to turn up with that attitude anyway...
They are not discriminated against. I can give my statement over the phone, a deaf person cannot, they need a face to face interview, I don't. The police cannot attend ever case in-person and maintain other duties, not with the deep cuts.
Billing for protests? Bit authoritarian. We have the right to protest "if you can afford it" isn't really in the remit. Why not charge for other police services? £150 to report a burglary, £2000 if someone tried to kill you.
Citation needed for the above maybe? Perhaps a correlation between time spent on a crime, contact with the victim and resolution rate?
You choose to organise a protest, you don't choose to be a crime victim. A closer comparison would be charging criminals the real costs of investigating their activities. Not as emotive though.
No one at a protest is choosing to be a crime victim either
No, but enough of them choose to commit criminal acts that it requires additional policing,
It reduces services to a level deemed acceptable for those who do not require anything further. There aren't enough resources to attend every call immediately, or provide in-person reassurance or reporting to a victim of crime.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,177
Dolph ruins every post I make.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
Lmao
This is how you have to read the news, from most sources (though more with the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun).
Read between the lines and from multiple sources.
Unfortunately a lot of people will take articles at face value and treat it as gospel, or guide toward their readers' way of thinking. Of course many media oulets/companies take advantage of this and appeal through scaremongering and the like. Sickening really, but what are you going to do?
Read between the lines and from multiple sources.
Unfortunately a lot of people will take articles at face value and treat it as gospel, or guide toward their readers' way of thinking. Of course many media oulets/companies take advantage of this and appeal through scaremongering and the like. Sickening really, but what are you going to do?
Because I don't accept your assumption that because this is being done, it is the only thing that can be done, and therefore must be due to Tory cuts?
I've disputed this and offered an alternative view of what the police could do to balance the budget, based on existing precedent (football clubs already have to pay towards policing near the grounds on match days).
How is that ruining anything? The purpose of debate is not to listen to an echo chamber.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,177
Because you don't understand or won't understand that the cuts are responsible for this.
You haven't provided any evidence of that.
The cuts mean the budget and services need to be reassessed, they do not mean that the met have to discriminate arbitrarily against crime victims.
I've already identified one alternative solution to balancing the books, there are no doubt others. Your position that the only thing that can be done is more money is not backed up by any evidence at all.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You usually come across as a reasonably well informed poster Dolph, but here you are well out of your depth.
It makes a lot of sense to prioritise vulnerable victims of crime, indeed most forces are doing this even if they're not putting a press release about it. Forces still prioritize calls based on severity, that will not change. However, when it comes to minor property crimes where there isn't the resource to visit everyone in person it makes sense to prioritise vulnerable victims where the impact to that person may be higher.
Point one, the level of investigation a crime has is decided by the police or indeed whether there is any investigation at all. You have no right to have a crime automatically investigated.
Point two, supporting victims of crime is a legally mandated requirement under the victim code. The whole idea of victim centric investigations is core to modern policing, catching criminals isn't enough anymore.
Most events that require some sort of licence will pay for some of the associated policing costs. The level of charging is dependant on many variables but some information is here: http://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/finance/2015/NPCC Guidelines on Charging for Police Services.pdf
It's worth noting that a protest is very different from a festival. The police have a duty to facilitate protests as it's an important part of the qualified freedom of speech in the UK. The ability to be able to voice a concern should not be predicated on the ability to pay for any incidental policing at these events.
It makes a lot of sense to prioritise vulnerable victims of crime, indeed most forces are doing this even if they're not putting a press release about it. Forces still prioritize calls based on severity, that will not change. However, when it comes to minor property crimes where there isn't the resource to visit everyone in person it makes sense to prioritise vulnerable victims where the impact to that person may be higher.
Point one, the level of investigation a crime has is decided by the police or indeed whether there is any investigation at all. You have no right to have a crime automatically investigated.
Point two, supporting victims of crime is a legally mandated requirement under the victim code. The whole idea of victim centric investigations is core to modern policing, catching criminals isn't enough anymore.
Most events that require some sort of licence will pay for some of the associated policing costs. The level of charging is dependant on many variables but some information is here: http://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/finance/2015/NPCC Guidelines on Charging for Police Services.pdf
It's worth noting that a protest is very different from a festival. The police have a duty to facilitate protests as it's an important part of the qualified freedom of speech in the UK. The ability to be able to voice a concern should not be predicated on the ability to pay for any incidental policing at these events.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
It's just worth making sure this is clear. Police do charge events for policing costs where appropriate and where statute allows.