Declining attitude to law and order
- Thread starter MookJong
- Start date
- Status
How big is your area?
How do those officers break down?
Have you allowed for the fact that there will be a need for multiple shifts, time off, training, back end work, illness, appearances in court?
Suddenly 3000 officers doesn't sound quite as high a number when you consider even just allowing for shifts you're looking at maybe 750 on duty at any one time, of which you'll have a number of them working on murders (sometimes hundreds. usually dozens), officers appearing in court (a reasonable number every day), officers to man the custody suites etc, officers at specific places that need full time protection.
The Met is about 30k officers as the biggest force in the country (from memory), covering an area of 600 odd square miles and something like 8 million people.
That's one officer per 260 odd people (nearer 1000 when you allow for training, shifts etc), in an area where the number of officers is artificially high because they have so many high risk areas and people needing police protection 24/7.
See that answer is just a complete cop-out.
"You don't know the inner workings of the police, therefore your opinion on what constitutes a waste of money is invalid."
Well no, because that's not how the world works, is it?
If I hire a plumber and he fits two taps and they both leak, he can't turn around and say, "You're not a plumber mate, so you can't tell me those taps are leaking."
If the police decided to spend £10k on ginger wigs to show solidarity with gingers, I hope you wouldn't be saying "You can't judge whether that's a waste of money or not - you aren't privy to our operations and how we work."
Thank you for so promptly and passionately supporting my point.
Do you realise that when you publically display that you have no argument other than screeching hackneyed insults formulated from your own irrational prejudices, you're strengthening the ideas you're screeching at? If you had any rational counter-argument, you wouldn't need to point and screech "WITCH!". So you're merely demonstrating that your position has no rational support, no thought, no reason, no fairness.
It says a lot about you that you regard treating people equally as the domain of paranoid bitter little idiots. A lot and none of it good.
You post statistics but never look at how those statistics were gathered. If you are only taking statistics then there is hardly any rape? There are reasons why statistics don't tell the whole picture. Get your head out book.
What's more even the times crime is reported only 1 in 15 actually get charged. In other words, even when caught 14, out of 15, people are either getting let off or never get caught.
You've either got a short memory or you're trolling, as that site was mentioned and debating months ago.
Who else is it the task of?
Neighbourhood watch stickers
Edit: can you explain the 14 ppl get caught but don't get caught thing O_o
Lol cool story bro, as if I'm going to waste my time putting any effort into arguing on the mumsnet of male nerd forums.
Your answer betrays wilful ignorance. You interpreted the response with what you wanted it to say, in order to make the remainder of your point.
You've then charged straight into saying that's a take on your opinion on what constitutes a waste of money as being invalid. And then your plumber example is ****, because it isn't anything to do with a waste of money. And then you construct something bizarre about ginger wigs as a metric for effectiveness.
The point that I think was trying to be made is that the police should reasonably be considered to be sufficiently expert in their profession to judge on the most appropriate and effective actions to take in order to mitigate specific risks.
You're saying that a user on an internet forum should be equally qualified to challenge that view, especially as you can make up an example about ginger wigs.
How silly does it look now?
Given that I consistently disagree with everything you ever say, I can say honestly that even if it looks silly to you, it looks perfectly rational to me.
You seem to think that by stating your opinion, that any contrary opinion is henceforth rendered "silly". Well, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that
I simply disagree with everything you've said.I also have you on ignore due to sheer pretentiousness. Whenever I click "reveal post" I immediately remember why.
Given that I consistently disagree with everything you ever say, I can say honestly that even if it looks silly to you, it looks perfectly rational to me.
You seem to think that by stating your opinion, that any contrary opinion is henceforth rendered "silly". Well, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that
I also have you on ignore due to sheer pretentiousness. Whenever I click "reveal post" I immediately remember why.
Ah, so your view is blinkered, predetermined and you’ve demonstrated that you’re not capable to listening to reasoned argument and being prepared to change your view as a result, and in fact have attempted to shut yourself away from it.
A useful idiot is a description that springs to mind. In this case you’re arguing with someone who works in a profession that you do not and claiming to know better than them.
But that is the problem. If the police were on top of crime and all was good then yes we could defer to the police Gods for their wise wisdom.
But they aren't on top of crime. I keep pointing out that for every 15 crimes reported only 1 gets charged. There are even more damaging statistics that I've posted in the past about burglary.
Apart from the fact that people on this forum, who aren't involved with the criminal justice system, are the members of the public, then they have a right to speak out on these subjects.
I don't blame the ordinary police officer for the spiralling crime or the crime arrest/charged figures. It's people higher up that are disorganised and maybe out of touch with reality at best.
Also we shouldn't make this a them vs us situation. As despite some people taking a hard line from the polices position, I know many ex police officiers who agree with what is being said here. I've no doubt serving police officers have to be very careful what they write on a public forum. So I can understand why they write how they do.
If the "police gods" were in charge there'd be a lot more officers available so they wouldn't have to make the choice between crime prevention but not chasing after criminals, chasing after ciminals but not doing crime prevention, or simply trying to cope with the most serious life threatening stuff...
At the moment the police are basically stuffed for officers, IIRC when Boris said he wanted another 20k officers basically replacing some that Mrs May(hem) threw out when she was home secretary, it was pointed out that to do that they'd need to train something like 45k new officers up within that time frame as they had around 25k officers due to retire by then...
It's weird how crime goes up when you cut the policing budget to the bone whilst expecting them to deal with more major incidents, and stuff that shouldn't (and wouldn't) have require much if any police intervention if the funding for things like the NHS mental health services hadn't been gutted.
IIRC the police are in a worse shape to deal with any disturbances like after the Duggan shooting than they were back then, and from memory back then it took them cancelling a lot of leave and getting assistance from all over the country to deal with it.
At the moment the police are basically stuffed for officers, IIRC when Boris said he wanted another 20k officers basically replacing some that Mrs May(hem) threw out when she was home secretary, it was pointed out that to do that they'd need to train something like 45k new officers up within that time frame as they had around 25k officers due to retire by then...
It's weird how crime goes up when you cut the policing budget to the bone whilst expecting them to deal with more major incidents, and stuff that shouldn't (and wouldn't) have require much if any police intervention if the funding for things like the NHS mental health services hadn't been gutted.
IIRC the police are in a worse shape to deal with any disturbances like after the Duggan shooting than they were back then, and from memory back then it took them cancelling a lot of leave and getting assistance from all over the country to deal with it.
The area is the entire county, covered population is labelled as 1+ million.
I dont know the breakdown hence my question in terms of % split into different officer allocations, like detectives, anti terrorism etc.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
My area is covered in the C4 documentary call the cops.
130k+ residents 8 officers on duty (4 coppers, 4 psco), that's one for every 16k people, crime up 70%+, most minor crimes are left ignored. We are heading towards a lawless society where only the most severe crimes are actually delt with.
130k+ residents 8 officers on duty (4 coppers, 4 psco), that's one for every 16k people, crime up 70%+, most minor crimes are left ignored. We are heading towards a lawless society where only the most severe crimes are actually delt with.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
@MadMossy - you live in Surrey - perhaps it is time to vote for someone other than the Tories?
Did it reveal the count of the officers not on beat duty? Behind desks, chasing speedsters etc.
Watching this show, I already have questions.
Why is it policy to need 8 officers to take a restrained person to the station?
Are the staff answering calls and dispatching officers, trained officers?
Pulling the guy over for registration plate issue was ridiculous and waste of resources. Then it ended up been 6 officers. O_o
Why is it policy to need 8 officers to take a restrained person to the station?
Are the staff answering calls and dispatching officers, trained officers?
Pulling the guy over for registration plate issue was ridiculous and waste of resources. Then it ended up been 6 officers. O_o
Last edited:
- Status