The media really ***** me off sometimes

Burnsy2023 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true public servant ;)

Does the level of investigation already depend on arbitrary factors? Is a burglary on a house where a disabled person lives more likely to get a meaningful investigation than one without?

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.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, the police decide not to investigate as mentioned above...

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.
Click to expand...

Voicing a concern does not have to require causing significant disruption and requiring a police presence. The usual motivation for this behaviour is to have a disproportionate impact compared to the numbers supporting your cause, not to 'voice a concern'.

Were the individuals involved in the 2010 student protests just voicing a concern?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_student_protests
 
Dolph said:
Does the level of investigation already depend on arbitrary factors? Is a burglary on a house where a disabled person lives more likely to get a meaningful investigation than one without?
Click to expand...

You're conflating two issues here: the level of investigation and the prioritisation of a face to face visit. The level of investigation for two separate crimes may still be minimal for both a vulnerable and a person without a vulnerability, but one may get a visit and one may only get a report taken over the phone. The level of investigation depends on the seriousness of the crime, the evidence available, the likelihood of an offender being found and the level of work required (so the level of resource avlaible clearly affects the level of investigation that is conducted on crimes where there may be a large investment of time).

Dolph said:
Unless, of course, the police decide not to investigate as mentioned above...
Click to expand...

In which case vulnerable victims may need more reassurance or signposting to charities or support organisations that other people are less likely to benefit from.

Dolph said:
Voicing a concern does not have to require causing significant disruption and requiring a police presence. The usual motivation for this behaviour is to have a disproportionate impact compared to the numbers supporting your cause, not to 'voice a concern'.

Were the individuals involved in the 2010 student protests just voicing a concern?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_student_protests
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_student_protests

Regardless, there isn't the power in law to charge for these events and it's highly unlikely that statue will be changed in this regard to prevent protests being restricted by ability to pay.

So your plan of raising loads of extra revenue has already been thought of by Chief Officers and is being used.

I've seen the cuts bite the effectiveness of the police service. Whilst the police are far from the most efficient organisation, most of the efficiencies would need a large amount of investment in changes of IT systems etc. Some forces have the ability to pay for these, some don't and it's a balance between maintaining a service now and investing for the future. Many forces are struggling to just keep the lights on.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You're conflating two issues here: the level of investigation and the prioritisation of a face to face visit. The level of investigation for two separate crimes may still be minimal for both a vulnerable and a person without a vulnerability, but one may get a visit and one may only get a report taken over the phone. The level of investigation depends on the seriousness of the crime, the evidence available, the likelihood of an offender being found and the level of work required (so the level of resource avlaible clearly affects the level of investigation that is conducted on crimes where there may be a large investment of time).

In which case vulnerable victims may need more reassurance or signposting to charities or support organisations that other people are less likely to benefit from.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the level or type of interaction between the police and crime victim has no bearing on the likelihood of resolving a crime? I can't find any good source on it, so if you have one, I would happily acknowledge it.

This is the key part for me, are we talking about support for the victim, or solving the crime. Different people do require different levels of support, but they shouldn't receive a different level of outcome when it comes to solving a crime.

Turn it around the other way, are you saying historic practices such as face to face visits have been a waste of time?

Regardless, there isn't the power in law to charge for these events and it's highly unlikely that statue will be changed in this regard to prevent protests being restricted by ability to pay.

So your plan of raising loads of extra revenue has already been thought of by Chief Officers and is being used.

I've seen the cuts bite the effectiveness of the police service. Whilst the police are far from the most efficient organisation, most of the efficiencies would need a large amount of investment in changes of IT systems etc. Some forces have the ability to pay for these, some don't and it's a balance between maintaining a service now and investing for the future. Many forces are struggling to just keep the lights on.
Click to expand...

The problem is there is no incentive to sort it out really, people have to pay for the police, people can't direct their money elsewhere and individual forces can't fail, so nothing changes, there are no structural incentives to find solutions.
 
Small scenario, you could technically totally collapse a police forces ability to function if you hold enough "protests", is that OK?

This ignores licenses not being given, let's say people don't care too much about the law.
 
Dolph said:
Are you saying that the level or type of interaction between the police and crime victim has no bearing on the likelihood of resolving a crime? I can't find any good source on it, so if you have one, I would happily acknowledge it.

This is the key part for me, are we talking about support for the victim, or solving the crime. Different people do require different levels of support, but they shouldn't receive a different level of outcome when it comes to solving a crime.

Turn it around the other way, are you saying historic practices such as face to face visits have been a waste of time?
Click to expand...

I'm saying whilst there may be a relationship it's probably not as strong as you might think it was. If you have lines of enquiry that need to be followed up, you will get a visit, it may be a little while, but you'll get one. For jobs where there aren't any lines of enquiry that are to be followed up, vulnerable victims may get a face to face visit to take the report whilst others may have it over the phone.

Dolph said:
The problem is there is no incentive to sort it out really, people have to pay for the police, people can't direct their money elsewhere and individual forces can't fail, so nothing changes, there are no structural incentives to find solutions.
Click to expand...

The reality that funding cuts are the medium term future is plenty of incentive. Forces have done all sorts of things to increase efficiency, but ultimately it's a very headcount intensive job to fulfill.
 
StriderX said:
Small scenario, you could technically totally collapse a police forces ability to function if you hold enough "protests", is that OK?

This ignores licenses not being given, let's say people don't care too much about the law.
Click to expand...

A force would likely call other forces to help in what is called mutual aid. Since this is likely to be very out of the ordinary, they can apply for emergency funding from the Home Office to cover these costs.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
A force would likely call other forces to help in what is called mutual aid. Since this is likely to be very out of the ordinary, they can apply for emergency funding from the Home Office to cover these costs.
Click to expand...

Literally infinite protests then, it's silly, but whatever. Then again it'd be dumb at this point because the situation would be untenable anyway regardless of cost, nevermind.
 
StriderX said:
Literally infinite protests then, it's silly, but whatever. Then again it'd be dumb at this point because the situation would be untenable anyway regardless of cost, nevermind.
Click to expand...

Just lots of simultaneous small protests would be equally effective.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You're conflating two issues here: the level of investigation and the prioritisation of a face to face visit. The level of investigation for two separate crimes may still be minimal for both a vulnerable and a person without a vulnerability, but one may get a visit and one may only get a report taken over the phone. The level of investigation depends on the seriousness of the crime, the evidence available, the likelihood of an offender being found and the level of work required (so the level of resource avlaible clearly affects the level of investigation that is conducted on crimes where there may be a large investment of time).



In which case vulnerable victims may need more reassurance or signposting to charities or support organisations that other people are less likely to benefit from.


Regardless, there isn't the power in law to charge for these events and it's highly unlikely that statue will be changed in this regard to prevent protests being restricted by ability to pay.

So your plan of raising loads of extra revenue has already been thought of by Chief Officers and is being used.

I've seen the cuts bite the effectiveness of the police service. Whilst the police are far from the most efficient organisation, most of the efficiencies would need a large amount of investment in changes of IT systems etc. Some forces have the ability to pay for these, some don't and it's a balance between maintaining a service now and investing for the future. Many forces are struggling to just keep the lights on.
Click to expand...

Yet seem able to pay a £45,000 (yes, forty five thousand pound) mobile phone bill for a criminal given a mobile to "stay in touch" with their force support agencies. No one noticed the monthly bills of obscene proportions, they just paid them...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-39488370

North Wales police have a bit of a history with expensive shenanigans with IT bills, too, seeing as you brought IT up :) as this scandal where they attempted to make *SAVINGS* of £700,000 (savings mind you, Jeez....) and ended up spending an extra £800,000.

The overspend, which came about after the force decided to switch suppliers, has been branded a "classic example of a public sector IT project gone wrong"

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/how-north-wales-police-tried-10612000

Seems they had a very Cavalier attitude with budgets, even a modicum of financial acumen and accounting would have let them "keep the lights on" for ever and a day...

Repeat this profligate, wasteful madness across forces throughout the UK and one can see why cuts should easily be absorbed by some basic accounting to show some semblance of professionalism with public funds. I won't mention the funds held by the unions....
 
With the massive increase of immigrants, both legal and illegal into the country were getting more and more to the point where English isn't the first language of many millions of people. What's so bad about hiring some of these people to talk to them in their own language? It will help solve crimes, communicate with them and foster some goodwill in these people if they know they're being listened to and understood. I'm not sure there's any major downside to this, other than prompting thousands of nationalists to froth at the mouth.
 
Dolph said:
No, but enough of them choose to commit criminal acts that it requires additional policing,
Click to expand...

So you're saying that people putting themselves in situations where crime is more likely to occur should pay more for policing?

Can we extend that to other things? Should drink people pay if they are mugged? Should people with single glazing pay if their house is broken into? People with expensive cars if they are stolen? All of them are putting themselves at potentially greater risks of crime, just like those going to/organizing protests and events.

On the other hand a business paying for security is a bit different. It could be argued that the cost of security/policing is just part of the cost of doing business.

You're arguing police service should be equal, yet arguing that some groups of society should have to pay for policing (protests and events). Slightly contradictory no?
 
Amp34 said:
You're arguing police service should be equal, yet arguing that some groups of society should have to pay for policing (protests and events). Slightly contradictory no?
Click to expand...

Protests and events aren't groups of people in the way that race, gender, sexuality, disability etc are, they are organised gatherings of people brought together by choice for short periods.

Protests and events absorbing large amounts of funds that can no longer be spent on general policing is not fair or equal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom