Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Parafox

Crime Statistics Increase after Police Numbers Decrease

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Sure - the less qualified thing comes from lowering pay and responsibilities, (I'm not especially referring to Police here - moreover other CJS related workers) - this means that that in turn the level of study in relation to the professionalisation of the occupation is reduced - and before you know it the standards of becoming a professional social worker, teacher, police officer or probation officer peak at GCSE... rather than at certificate level 4, diploma level 5, undergrad degree level 6, masters L7 or doctoral L8 etc...

Again it's a question of the pot. How are we going to get the money to pay more people?

 

Apart from when I had my own business I've spent my life in Education. Education salaries in France are not as good as in England but it is a very secure employment with a guaranteed pension. Most of the public sector over here in France is the same - and the public sector is a massive employer. I could earn a lot more if I work for myself (as an educator or education advisor) but I'd also work a lot more, have a lot more stress and the hours would be less sociable. I believe that teachers/nurses/policemen should do these jobs because they want to help their community and society - I know that's naive - and therefore I believe that we should accept being paid less than the private sector as long as these salary savings are passed on to a better education/health/...system for our community and society. I get annoyed that class sizes are increasing for example despite accepting lower pay.

 

I don't think that lower pay necessarily equates to lower standards, lower respect maybe. If I talk about the area of my expertise I often find that the worst and least professional teachers are those that have come into teaching through alternate routes like PGCE rather than B.Ed. It's possible that lower wages will mean good teachers/health workers/ police going into better paid private jobs but again I think that's overstated most jobs are still in the public sector. What we have to do is ensure that that the lower wages are balanced with respect in other ways and a value given to these workers other than financial. We also mustn't ignore the importance of in-job training and professionalisation. People working their way through and therefore knowing the systems inside out. Naive maybe, but still it's been my philosophy throughout life. (says the man sitting a stones throw from the beach in the middle of a four month vacation at 25°C).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The thing I find strange is that despite all the apparent efficiencies the Police are supposedly delivering, that the % of Police in front line roles is stable at 93% from 2009 to 2015.  Surely the idea is to be more efficient in back office and put more front line officers investigating crime?

One of the big problems is that 93% of 150 is significantly more than 93% of 100.  Couple with that the fact that most of the back office work was conducted by civilian members of staff.  When cuts had to be made, because police officers can't be made redundant, it was the civilians that lost their jobs.  But guess what? That work still needed doing and it fell to front line officers to pick it up, thus spending increased time off the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Sure - the less qualified thing comes from lowering pay and responsibilities, (I'm not especially referring to Police here - moreover other CJS related workers) - this means that that in turn the level of study in relation to the professionalisation of the occupation is reduced - and before you know it the standards of becoming a professional social worker, teacher, police officer or probation officer peak at GCSE... rather than at certificate level 4, diploma level 5, undergrad degree level 6, masters L7 or doctoral L8 etc...

Actually, the primary route into policing now in most forces is for new recruits to get a degree in policing before applying.  The expectation is to do the two or three year course AND become a Special Constable at the same time to gain experience. The theory being that once appointed they need minimal training.

 

It used to be the case that it was common to get career changers into the police, joining in their late 20's or mid 30's or older and they brought with them a wealth of real life experience and were often great communicators.  Trouble is now, if you have a family and a mortgage, it isn't that easy to go back to full time education. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MattP said:

Always enough police at the football. I even watched a video of an on-duty copper proposing to their partner at gay pride the other week. 

 

Even before austerity I barely remember seeing a bobby on the beat, they seemed to vanish in the 90's - why we lost the desire for preventative policing I have no idea.

 

I'd imagine the cutdown in stop and search by Theresa May as home sec has had a serious effect though, terrible decision based on a false narrative of tolerance.

Hit the nail on the head there.  Officers up and down the country have basically stopped doing it for fear of being accused of being racist and the media storm that surrounds it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Craig said:

A definite link.

 

The criminals are fully aware that the Police don't have the resources to cope, they tell me as much. 

 

The Police here (Northants) seem to be recruiting heavily at the moment so hopefully that will help things.

 

Worrying to see the Met writing to retired officers asking them to come out of retirement though!

sweeney.png.e3d989e2fa5d6e6858e1c02b5c89cf4a.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nnfox said:

Actually, the primary route into policing now in most forces is for new recruits to get a degree in policing before applying.  The expectation is to do the two or three year course AND become a Special Constable at the same time to gain experience. The theory being that once appointed they need minimal training.

 

It used to be the case that it was common to get career changers into the police, joining in their late 20's or mid 30's or older and they brought with them a wealth of real life experience and were often great communicators.  Trouble is now, if you have a family and a mortgage, it isn't that easy to go back to full time education. 

Yeah - I wasn't referring to Police as I said in this instance - whilst Policing has become professionalised in recent years - Probation and Youth Justice has come under threat. As has Policing in some ways too due to the volunteering element. I've contributed to a few of the university Police courses in the midlands areas over the past decade or so. Including working on stop and search...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can debate to their hearts content.

It is NO surprise that people feel they can get away with more acts of a criminal nature, when they know there is less of a visible deterrent.

Its like not having a teacher in a playground at lunchtime. Many adults remain ostensibly children so will do what they want to, if they feel no-one's watching and they can get away with it.

Its not rocket science this stuff, though people try to make it so to fuel their arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, FIF said:

It is worrying. The UK are cutting numbers of policemen as well as many other public workers because their pay is too high for the country to afford. Reduce pay, increase numbers, reduce useless paperwork. Make the UK a better place to live.

 

18 hours ago, FIF said:

Again it's a question of the pot. How are we going to get the money to pay more people?

 

Apart from when I had my own business I've spent my life in Education. Education salaries in France are not as good as in England but it is a very secure employment with a guaranteed pension. Most of the public sector over here in France is the same - and the public sector is a massive employer. I could earn a lot more if I work for myself (as an educator or education advisor) but I'd also work a lot more, have a lot more stress and the hours would be less sociable. I believe that teachers/nurses/policemen should do these jobs because they want to help their community and society - I know that's naive - and therefore I believe that we should accept being paid less than the private sector as long as these salary savings are passed on to a better education/health/...system for our community and society. I get annoyed that class sizes are increasing for example despite accepting lower pay.

 

I don't think that lower pay necessarily equates to lower standards, lower respect maybe. If I talk about the area of my expertise I often find that the worst and least professional teachers are those that have come into teaching through alternate routes like PGCE rather than B.Ed. It's possible that lower wages will mean good teachers/health workers/ police going into better paid private jobs but again I think that's overstated most jobs are still in the public sector. What we have to do is ensure that that the lower wages are balanced with respect in other ways and a value given to these workers other than financial. We also mustn't ignore the importance of in-job training and professionalisation. People working their way through and therefore knowing the systems inside out. Naive maybe, but still it's been my philosophy throughout life. (says the man sitting a stones throw from the beach in the middle of a four month vacation at 25°C).

If you've spent your life in education you must be able to work out for yourself that properly funding the economy leads to higher  growth which skids the country to afford proper public services. People only believe we can't afford it because the government has been sucking money out of the economy and telling everybody this. A financial crisis is a temporary thing but the actions taken subsequently have led to the continued financial depression within our public services. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, toddybad said:

 

If you've spent your life in education you must be able to work out for yourself that properly funding the economy leads to higher  growth which skids the country to afford proper public services. People only believe we can't afford it because the government has been sucking money out of the economy and telling everybody this. A financial crisis is a temporary thing but the actions taken subsequently have led to the continued financial depression within our public services. 

 

 

 

I have spent my life in Education and I also live in the real world. Proper funding needs higher taxes if you don't believe that then I think you're not in touch with the real world. If the government are sucking money out of the economy as you say where do you think they are putting it? In their own offshore bank accounts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/07/2017 at 13:14, FIF said:

 

I have spent my life in Education and I also live in the real world. Proper funding needs higher taxes if you don't believe that then I think you're not in touch with the real world. If the government are sucking money out of the economy as you say where do you think they are putting it? In their own offshore bank accounts? 

I've no problem with putting tax up. Neither did the labour party i voted for. 

Growth has a much, much more significant impact on the deficit/surplus/ amount available, however. Very small % changes in growth can add up to huge amounts over time - 1% of growth is equivalent to roughly £15bn of spending money at this moment and that figure gets larger every year. 

 

Cutting public expenditure in real terms is taking money out of the economy - that's just fact.

I'll answer your question with another - where do you think your tax payments go? Do you think the government has a bank account for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, toddybad said:

I've no problem with putting tax up. Neither did the labour party i voted for. 

Growth has a much, much more significant impact on the deficit/surplus/ amount available, however. Very small % changes in growth can add up to huge amounts over time - 1% of growth is equivalent to roughly £15bn of spending money at this moment and that figure gets larger every year. 

 

Cutting public expenditure in real terms is taking money out of the economy - that's just fact.

I'll answer your question with another - where do you think your tax payments go? Do you think the government has a bank account for them?

It's easy for political parties who know they have no chance of being elected to made big promises. The people didn't vote labour in and if they are promised that Labour is going to significantly increase their taxes they probably never will be.

 

I only have A level Economics and that was some time ago but we both know that statements like the one I've highlighted are not really worth the typing it took to make them don't we?

 

Obviously growth is good (and also bad), obviously investment is good (and also bad) obviously governments use the money they collect in taxes in the ways they think will best help "the country".

 

I think you didn't answer my question because the answer was obvious and didn't help your argument/cause. I don't need to guess where tax payments go because in an open democratic country like the UK they are all itemised. i know that the government doesn't hold onto them in order for the country to go to ruin, The UK is not a corrupt country it is simply one (of many) where the inhabitants leave beyond their present means.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, FIF said:

It's easy for political parties who know they have no chance of being elected to made big promises. The people didn't vote labour in and if they are promised that Labour is going to significantly increase their taxes they probably never will be.

 

I only have A level Economics and that was some time ago but we both know that statements like the one I've highlighted are not really worth the typing it took to make them don't we?

 

Obviously growth is good (and also bad), obviously investment is good (and also bad) obviously governments use the money they collect in taxes in the ways they think will best help "the country".

 

I think you didn't answer my question because the answer was obvious and didn't help your argument/cause. I don't need to guess where tax payments go because in an open democratic country like the UK they are all itemised. i know that the government doesn't hold onto them in order for the country to go to ruin, The UK is not a corrupt country it is simply one (of many) where the inhabitants leave beyond their present means.

 

My point is purely that the idea we can't increase public spending without risking ruin is false.  That's not to say that we should run with an ever increasing deficits but does mean that we should use public broowing to brining about the levy of growth required for it to reach the lives of ordinary people. There's a reason that the uk stands alone in supporting the kinds of domestic policies lomg retired elsewhere and that reason is that you cannot exit a financial crisis through austerity without it causing lasting damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP

Anyone know the figures for how much time, manpower and money the police spend investigating things people have said on Twitter and Facebook? 

 

Just asking after seeing this....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

Anyone know the figures for how much time, manpower and money the police spend investigating things people have said on Twitter and Facebook? 

 

Just asking after seeing this....

 

 

Well Sadiq Khan set up an online hate unit hub just for the police in London earlier this year at a cost of nearly £1 million per year, so thats a starting point for perspective.

 

Seriously though, encouraging people to ring 999 if their feelings have been hurt. Get a fvcking grip! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
10 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

Well Sadiq Khan set up an online hate unit hub just for the police in London earlier this year at a cost of nearly £1 million per year, so thats a starting point for perspective.

 

Seriously though, encouraging people to ring 999 if their feelings have been hurt. Get a fvcking grip! 

Becomes hard to have too much sympathy over so called cuts when they encourage that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Becomes hard to have too much sympathy over so called cuts when they encourage that.

 

Similarly to the NHS, there is plenty of money going in to it etc but it's just spent incredibly poorly within a shit system really. The police have been pushing the 101 number for years and rightly so. They shouldn't be pulled away from real problems to deal with something which isn't an emergency, then they go spouting this nonsense and having dedicated units set up for mean words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...