This is why people are losing respect for the police...

[dowie]

I went to a talk last night by an ex-undercover officer(Christian Plowman) who worked his way up the ranks in the Met during the 90s and 00s
But one interesting fact he said was that back in his day they did 40 weeks of training whereas now they only do a few hours online and then put into uniform. Shocking.

Perhaps you got confused here as I can tell that's total nonsense without even knowing what the actual length of police training is these days.

We now have 21k new officers, a larger population so proportionally numbers are still down and droves still retiring (think I saw a figure suggesting we would need >40k to address the problem as a whole).

Nah, if you're concerned about the proportion of police officers to population then the population has increased by about 7% since 2010 so you'd need another 10k on top of the 21k or whatever that have apparently been recruited.

Still, if we're back to 2010 total numbers of police then that's a good thing regardless.

 

[doodah]

For sure but it's some skewed progress as the Tories are trying to claim.

 

[VincentHanna]

Perhaps you got confused here as I can tell that's total nonsense without even knowing what the actual length of police training is these days.



Nah, if you're concerned about the proportion of police officers to population then the population has increased by about 7% since 2010 so you'd need another 10k on top of the 21k or whatever that have apparently been recruited.

Still, if we're back to 2010 total numbers of police then that's a good thing regardless.

Imagine we had kept the 20,000 officers in 2010, and recruited 10,000+ more to keep up with population increase/demand though.

It's an objectively better position to be in, because there's literally more police to deal with crime, and take the strain off over-worked colleagues.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Alternatively to aiming for a 50 / 50 ratio of police to population make the sentencing so Draconian that crimes themselves are substantially reduced?

 

[TheVoice]

Yeah high recruitment numbers are good for PR but if you want to actually make the situation better retain staff and bring back the support staff. Police will be higher paid than support staff and presumably there the ones who took over support staff duties, I can't think of a sensible reason support staff were cut.

Money. Police staff can be made redundant, police officers cannot. You can use police officers to backfill any other function for "free" because they come from a different budget. It's how the Scottish Government maintained its party line about keeping a consistent number of police officers for years; they had them in admin, resourcing, control rooms etc which would usually be entirely run by police staff.

 

[a1ex2001]

Alternatively to aiming for a 50 / 50 ratio of police to population make the sentencing so Draconian that crimes themselves are substantially reduced?

There is very little evidence that harsh sentencing causes a significant a reduction in crime, it is pretty much universally accepted by experts in the field.

 

[potatolord]

There is very little evidence that harsh sentencing causes a significant a reduction in crime, it is pretty much universally accepted by experts in the field.

You can never be too harsh, I say.

 

[Mr Jack]

Let's face it, if the Dark Judges were real there'd be members on this forum arguing that they weren't tough enough on immigration.

 

[Quango-uk]

Perhaps you got confused here as I can tell that's total nonsense without even knowing what the actual length of police training is these days.



Nah, if you're concerned about the proportion of police officers to population then the population has increased by about 7% since 2010 so you'd need another 10k on top of the 21k or whatever that have apparently been recruited.

Still, if we're back to 2010 total numbers of police then that's a good thing regardless.

Perhaps you got confused here as I can tell that's total nonsense without even knowing what the actual length of police training is these days.



Nah, if you're concerned about the proportion of police officers to population then the population has increased by about 7% since 2010 so you'd need another 10k on top of the 21k or whatever that have apparently been recruited.

Still, if we're back to 2010 total numbers of police then that's a good thing regardless.

well, I'm just going by what he said, I was surprised myself. Maybe it's the fast-tracked he is referring to?

 

[potatolord]

Let's face it, if the Dark Judges were real there'd be members on this forum arguing that they weren't tough enough on immigration.

"Judge Mortis will present his policy statement on reducing NHS waiting lists at 2pm"

 

[robgmun]

The government just announced it has reached its target of recruiting 20,000 extra police. In fact it has recruited very nearly 21,000 more.

Pointless if they're going to be as useful as an inflatable dart board

 

[jpaul]

Corollary - Crime has declined so QED we don't need that many additional officers, albeit with the recession that will U turn.

 

[DavidTJ]

Money. Police staff can be made redundant, police officers cannot. You can use police officers to backfill any other function for "free" because they come from a different budget. It's how the Scottish Government maintained its party line about keeping a consistent number of police officers for years; they had them in admin, resourcing, control rooms etc which would usually be entirely run by police staff.

Urgh of course we're that stupid sigh.

Obviously at the very top level police officers and police support staff are both paid by the public. Having all police staff means we're paying more for admin to people who won't be as good as admin as lower paid admin staff.

Anyone can see that so people 3-10x as much as I earn are making the country worse off knowingly and deliberately by this budgetary nonsense. In police Scotlands case the costs to Scotland may be indeed lower if all the extra cost is passed to the uk government

 

[Dis86]

Imagine we had kept the 20,000 officers in 2010, and recruited 10,000+ more to keep up with population increase/demand though.

It's an objectively better position to be in, because there's literally more police to deal with crime, and take the strain off over-worked colleagues.

And to have kept additional, vital experience.

 

[Dis86]

There is very little evidence that harsh sentencing causes a significant a reduction in crime, it is pretty much universally accepted by experts in the field.

Not correct. Harsh sentencing is proven to reduce recidivism and it also keeps a danger to the public off the streets. Middling sentences are useless. Short sentences are useless.

 

[Werewolf]

Not correct. Harsh sentencing is proven to reduce recidivism and it also keeps a danger to the public off the streets. Middling sentences are useless. Short sentences are useless.

However the thing that's been shown to be most effective of all is twofold.
One is actually catching the criminals, there is zero point in extremely harsh sentences if you routinely only catch a couple of percent of the people committing crimes.

Two is doing something other than just throwing people in a cell, so that when they get out they have other options, things like the much derided "education" and "rehabilitation" schemes that mean that when someone is released they've got useful, legal skills and options other than just going back to committing crimes. See also assistance to get off drugs and really pushing to make sure that the prisons are drug free (including making smuggling contraband of any kind into the prison as an employee something that gets exceptionally harsh sentencing).

We had the death penalty and deportation to Australia for crimes like petty theft at various times in the past, it did little to stop crimes of desperation such as stealing to feed the family.

 

[Chris Wilson]

However the thing that's been shown to be most effective of all is twofold.
One is actually catching the criminals, there is zero point in extremely harsh sentences if you routinely only catch a couple of percent of the people committing crimes.

Two is doing something other than just throwing people in a cell, so that when they get out they have other options, things like the much derided "education" and "rehabilitation" schemes that mean that when someone is released they've got useful, legal skills and options other than just going back to committing crimes. See also assistance to get off drugs and really pushing to make sure that the prisons are drug free (including making smuggling contraband of any kind into the prison as an employee something that gets exceptionally harsh sentencing).

We had the death penalty and deportation to Australia for crimes like petty theft at various times in the past, it did little to stop crimes of desperation such as stealing to feed the family.

I don't see much if any stealing to feed the family here in the UK. Countries with corporal punishment seems to have very low levels of crime, save from those genuinely mentally ill. It certainly needs bringing back into schools here.

 

[Richie]

I don't see much if any stealing to feed the family here in the UK. Countries with corporal punishment seems to have very low levels of crime, save from those genuinely mentally ill. It certainly needs bringing back into schools here.

"Coz it did me no harm"... Amiright?

 

[Chris Wilson]

"Coz it did me no harm"... Amiright?

How would you suggest feral teenage school children are brought to heel if they have zero fear or respect for their teachers and act like wild animals on school premises? If teachers are not currently allowed to lay a hand on them, do we just accept that many inner city schools are like poorly run zoos?

 

[D.P.]

How would you suggest feral teenage school children are brought to heel if they have zero fear or respect for their teachers and act like wild animals on school premises? If teachers are not currently allowed to lay a hand on them, do we just accept that many inner city schools are like poorly run zoos?

Your first mistake is thinking children with behavioral problems don't have respect or lack fear of authority , let alone you are failing to realize that instilling fear to force desired outcomes is the last thing you want to teach children