Declining attitude to law and order

Status
Not open for further replies.
It could be said that showing the police are friendly with LGBT people does reduce homophobic crimes [..]

It could also be said that putting stickers on things doesn't show anything other than that you have the stickers and people to stick them on things.

It could also be said that spending £30,000 on stickers should only be done when there is sufficient spare money to do so.

It could also be said that rainbow stickers (and other items) are meaningless things that serve only as a fashionable statement to improve an organisation's media presence and social status (almost always for the purpose of gaining power and profit).

It could also be said that the police should be (to quote the person who created the modern police) "offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing" and not only to group identities with higher social standing.

Many things could be said.
 
Regardless it's just £30k for a maybe/maybe not benefit that would take far too long to study the effectiveness while it might currently be of use, £30k isn't going to solve the countries problems and you'd be misleading everyone if you said that penny pinching was worth it after an ideological austerity program that has likely (i'd say definitely) gotten people killed, but then people voted for it so i guess a few death's are alright as long at it hurts the "right people".
 
The National Trust lost a huge amount of revenue when it asked its volunteers to wear LGBT support showing wrist bands, I suspect many tax payers, myself included would vote with our pockets the idea of the police showing costly visible support for a minority already over mollycoddled by the law and media. How many Tasers would £30,000 buy? They are far more effective in protecting Joe Public from miscreants than potentially paint damaging ("tacky") stickers...
 
The police need to be in amongst the community.

I agree and I think despite the problems currently being faced, most UK forces still do a fairly good job of that. They don't always get it right and the public aren't always understanding or sympathetic, but it could be far worse.


The problem isn't police numbers, we've had less police in the past controlling bigger populations. The problem is the police don't have direct intelligence from the communities they are supposed to be helping. The police shouldn't be waiting until Johnny from Manchester as to call them about anti-social behaviour. The police should already be on the ground investigating it as part of their normal job.

It is about numbers though, things have changed since the mid-80s. The workloads are massive now and the administrative aspect takes a lot of time. The police can't deter crime if they're tied up for half a shift dealing with someone suffering mental health problems who the hospital keep turning away. The problems are cyclical but the other agencies (who are also overstretched) know that the police simply can't say no and not attend. It's seemingly acceptable for the ambulance service to say they won't attend but the police simply can't or they'll be blamed if something happens to that person.

As for this £30k figure that keeps getting batted around, has any source been cited for that yet other than a conversation with an unknown person and at unknown force?
 
It is about numbers though, things have changed since the mid-80s. The workloads are massive now and the administrative aspect takes a lot of time. The police can't deter crime if they're tied up for half a shift dealing with someone suffering mental health problems who the hospital keep turning away. The problems are cyclical but the other agencies (who are also overstretched) know that the police simply can't say no and not attend. It's seemingly acceptable for the ambulance service to say they won't attend but the police simply can't or they'll be blamed if something happens to that person.

I agree that currently now in the methodology they use they will need more and more officers because the amount of crimes are increasing all the time. They are playing catch-up all the time. The administrative side as become more of a problem because the police are current very stretched on resources. The original idea of the police was to deter crime before they happen, so as to keep numbers down. Under the current situation crime isn't being deterred and is running rampant.

Unless the police find ways to deter crime then its going to continue to get out of control.
 
I agree that currently now in the methodology they use they will need more and more officers because the amount of crimes are increasing all the time. They are playing catch-up all the time. The administrative side as become more of a problem because the police are current very stretched on resources. The original idea of the police was to deter crime before they happen, so as to keep numbers down. Under the current situation crime isn't being deterred and is running rampant.

Unless the police find ways to deter crime then its going to continue to get out of control.

A criminal doesn't care for deterrence as they don't think they'll be caught, only "in the moment" plebs think about that. All a deterrent is for a criminal is something to swerve and run from.

And the amount of crimes are NOT increasing all the time, you keep posting this guff every single time and it's annoying. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ndandwales/yearendingmarch2019#latest-figures

I think maybe stop reading tabloids for news on crime.
 
Last edited:
It could also be said that putting stickers on things doesn't show anything other than that you have the stickers and people to stick them on things.

It could also be said that spending £30,000 on stickers should only be done when there is sufficient spare money to do so.

It could also be said that rainbow stickers (and other items) are meaningless things that serve only as a fashionable statement to improve an organisation's media presence and social status (almost always for the purpose of gaining power and profit).

It could also be said that the police should be (to quote the person who created the modern police) "offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing" and not only to group identities with higher social standing.

Many things could be said.

Considering the latent homophobia present in the police historically I think them attempting to do a bit of out reach and show support for the LGBT community is well worth spending money on.

So yea, you could say all those things, but you would be a paranoid bitter little idiot to think them.
 
Considering the latent homophobia present in the police historically I think them attempting to do a bit of out reach and show support for the LGBT community is well worth spending money on.

So yea, you could say all those things, but you would be a paranoid bitter little idiot to think them.
Colour me surprised that you'd take that viewpoint.

Anyone who challenges the SJW madness and PC nonsense is just wrong, in your world ;) Anyway, of the people I know of who are actually LGBT and post on here, so far 100% are against wasting public money on rainbow stickers.

En fluga gör ingen sommar!

You must have lots more examples of profligacy that infuriate you - GO FOR IT MATE.
You never know who reads the forum, so I'll decline.
 
Last edited:
Unless the police find ways to deter crime then its going to continue to get out of control.

As said already, crime prevention and deterrence isn't the sole task of the police. The strategy of getting cops out of cars and on their feet wandering about isn't the strategy that's required unfortunately, otherwise it'd have been implemented already.
 
That's not a cultural change nor an issue of attitude, it's down to resources and priorities. The police aren't the sole gatekeepers for crime prevention either.

There is enough resources to do more than they doing.

For a start they can redeploy police on road patrols.

I am all for more money, but I am also for it been used in the right way, the fact you think there is no cultural issue at all only proves my point, the first part of the solution is acceptance of the problem.
 
I know they dont patrol the streets on foot preventing things like anti social behaviour.

The police are supposed to be crime prevention as their primary purpose, they have moved to just reacting to crime, I dont know why you keep defending that.
 
There is enough resources to do more than they doing.

For a start they can redeploy police on road patrols.

I am all for more money, but I am also for it been used in the right way, the fact you think there is no cultural issue at all only proves my point, the first part of the solution is acceptance of the problem.
Do you mean motoring units or units in cars doing normal patrols?

If you take officers off road policing you get an increase in the number of idiots that are barely kept in check as it is.

If you take officers out of car patrols to do foot patrols you massively decrease the ability to respond in a timely manner to offences.

From memory most forces have cut back their roads unit's massively over the last decade or so, to the point where there may only be a handful of officers to cover an entire county or multi county region when there is an incident.

Non motoring police numbers have also been cut, with the only hope of any sort of reasonable response time being to keep them in cars because you might have 2 officers covering a town of 20k people at times, on foot it might take them half an hour to make their way from one side of the town to the other, in a car it might take 5 minutes (I've heard that our area is often down to a far lower nuimber with somehting like 6-10 officers to cover an area of about 100+ square miles and a couple of hundred thousand people spread across multiple towns and numerous villages).
 
If you prevent crime, in turn you reduce the incidents you need to respond to, its a long term gain for a short term loss.

Perhaps you thought I meant just disband everything all in one sweep, I meant do a gradual shift.

The CSO idea from new labour may have worked better if they gave CSO's actual police authority.

Also in my view the police shouldnt be anti terrorism, thats the army. That would adjust resources as well.
 
If you prevent crime, in turn you reduce the incidents you need to respond to, its a long term gain for a short term loss.

Perhaps you thought I meant just disband everything all in one sweep, I meant do a gradual shift.
Erm so you'd be happy for the police to take longer to respond to life threatening incidents for the next however many months/years in the hope that at some point you'll see a decrease in the number of life threatening incidents that may or may not have anything to do with actual crime?
You seem to be forgetting that a lot of policing is about dealing with life threatening situations that may not have anything to do with crime.

You can't cut traffic units without massively affecting their ability to respond to things like RTA's and their role in helping prevent them by both catching people driving whilst breaking the law drunk/drugged/dangerously, in unsafe vehicles or simply in dangerous situations (break downs on the motorway).

You can't cut vehicle patrols for non motoring units without removing the ability to respond promptly to emergency calls, would you be happy to have a call to someone with a knife take 15 minutes+ for a response by officers who are out of breath having run several miles because the patrol cars (that could have been there in a couple of minutes) were done away with to increase foot patrols?
How about a lost child or someone who is threatening to kill themselves?

At the moment the police forces have been cut pretty much to the bone, there isn't room to do things like community policing on foot as many people want, without massively affecting the ability to response promptly to emergency calls.
This is especially true given that the government has also cut the funding for things like NHS mental health units, so police are dealing with "missing, in danger" calls that may have been prevented much more cheaply by having mental health provisions on call before it became bad enough to require a police response.

To do what you want would at the very least in the short term require an increase in the number of officers to prevent a spike in deaths/injuries that could have been prevented if the police had made it to the call as fast as normal.
 
I know they dont patrol the streets on foot preventing things like anti social behaviour.

The police are supposed to be crime prevention as their primary purpose, they have moved to just reacting to crime, I dont know why you keep defending that.

So are you suggesting the police don't respond to crime at all?
 
There is 3000 officers in my area, what are they all doing to be cut to the bone?

Lots of vague (and I noticed one short answers) claiming things like (cut to the bone) and (unable to do anything but respond to 999 calls). Without any evidence behind it.

Give me a breakdown of how staff are allocated.
Priority list for police.

Numbers for things like

diverted to london for protecting MPs anti terrorism etc.
policing the internet
anti terrorism
traffic crime (speeders etc.)
detectives for things like investigating rape
patrols as preventative measure

Also a foot patrol doesnt mean the officer doesnt have a car nearby, he can park up and walk around streets close to his vehicle. He could even drive around areas at a very slow speed kind of emulating a foot patrol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom