Proposed Police Reform

Do we need a national force?

  • Yes. It is long overdue.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
#1
It looks as if ol' Big Ears is serious about merging forces with less than two thousand pairs of boots to parade. Long overdue in my opinion. I view the present structure to be an anachronistic relic of Victorian organisation - the large metro überforces not withstanding. It's also nice to see another organisation having the sword of reform hanging over it for a change.

The advance of technology has pretty much rendered the original raison d'être of small county constabularies obsolete. Is the UK big enough to warrant forty-odd forces?

I also think that the Special Constabulary is well past its bedtime and is in need of a total overhaul. SCs should be paid the same rate as their regular counterparts for duties carried out. Again, technology could be better used to enable SCs to log on duty at any point they have sufficient spare time that could be better used for the benefit of policing. Afternoon off work? Go home, don uniform, and wander around a housing estate for a couple of hours. Could the solution to visible policing and combating regular officer overstretch be this simple?

I think that the SCs are a totally wasted asset. Better used and motivated, there would be no need for CSOs. How can reserve service personnel receive pay, yet SCs only receive home to duty allowance?

I must point out that I'm not a SC. However, if the organisation were to be overhauled and specials were to be paid as per their reserve forces counterparts, then I might reconsider. I wouldn't want to be utilised for bloody footie matches every Saturday though (I'd simply ban it).

I might be talking through my arrse here, but I'd be interested in the viewpoint of others - especially if they're serving Bill - part-time or otherwise.
 
#2
The question is, what does he mean by reform?

Is this about making the police more effective, cost efficient, or is it just about the politicians gaining more control over the police and thus making the police more responsive to the needs of the party in power as opposed to the needs of the people and the law of the land.

Remember the "party" tried to order MDP to get involved with the last fuel protest and were very pissed when the Chief Constable said no - it would be against the law. My view is that part of the aim of reform is to prevent Chief Constables refusing to take orders.

I once read that these "reforms" will continue until the number of Chief Constables of Home Office forces in England & Wales has been reduced to 20. Apparently this is the maximum number you can comfortably sit around a large conference table at one time.

Remember Blunket changed the law in order to be able to sack a Chief Constable despite the ldesire of the local police authorities to retain his services.

Blair and his cronies have shifted the balance of power which used to be three sided Chief Constable / Police Authority / Home Secretary decidedly in favour of the Home Secretary. This is nto good news.
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#3
It cant be a bad thing, if it was in place a few years ago Huntley would have never got his caretakers job in Cambrigde.
 
#4
The Met's the biggest force in the country, but still was unable to prevent 7/7. Strathclyde is the second biggest force, but Lothian and Borders still had to ask not just Glasgow but forces from England, including the Met, for help during the G8.
Officers from other forces had to be drafted into help the Met during the investigation into the London bombings.
Just merging the small forces with bigger ones is not going to solve the real problems; we don't have enough coppers and the ones we do have are not well trained enough(and that's the opinion of the SAS, not just mine).
And, of course, the fact that our judges are senile and the lawyers would perform oral sex on Satan for the right price.
I agree thaty SC's should be paid for thier time. After all, the TA get full pay, why not part-time plods?
 
#5
It might be a good idea to divvy up all that money that some slightly larger forces are getting to beef up others.

As for the Special Cons i don't think the line bobby would be happy with being more reliant on them. In the same way as The army doesn't like relying on the TA.
 
#6
Bad_Crow said:
It might be a good idea to divvy up all that money that some slightly larger forces are getting to beef up others.

As for the Special Cons i don't think the line bobby would be happy with being more reliant on them. In the same way as The army doesn't like relying on the TA.
You think Plod would be happier relying on PCSO's? At least Specials have police powers of arrest, use of force etc. PCSO's are a waste of uniform - not just my opinion, the opinion of every serving copper I've met and most of them on ARRSE too.

As for Regular Army relying on TA; if you prefer, all TA could just stay at home. I'm sure the Army would hardly notice the differance... :roll:
 
#7
My chum in blue (alright, in black) claims that the cops are seriously upset about their pay and terms of service (in particular due to the tearing-up of the wages formula), the Met are the most upset, and there may well be a legal challenge to the prohibition on industrial action and even a suspicous outbreak of what may be termed the "blue flu" ie. co-ordinated absence due to sickness.
 
#8
stop giving them so much money on sick leave, early retirement etce would save a fortune. Fave coppers reason for early retirement is a Bad Back
 
#9
If , and I say again,If this comes about all that will happen is that there will be another level of administration between the government and the bobby on the beat. The total police forcwe in the UK is obviously too large to be controlled from one location we would therefore end up with Home Office, THE NEW ORGANISATION,regional HQs, County HQs. In these days of IT all that is needed is for the information banks of all forces to be available to all others (Not unlike the Cebtral Criminal Records).
It would be easier for a government department to exert undue influence on a centralised headquarters than to deal with the present number of constabularies. It is very unlikely that, given this government's past record , any more money would be available tp pay for the new level so it would of necessity be taken from the bottom of the system , less bobbies on the beat. In my opinion , for what it's worth , it's a bad idea and more a case of being seen to do something than actually doing something.
 
#10
craftsmanx said:
If , and I say again,If this comes about all that will happen is that there will be another level of administration between the government and the bobby on the beat. The total police forcwe in the UK is obviously too large to be controlled from one location we would therefore end up with Home Office, THE NEW ORGANISATION,regional HQs, County HQs. In these days of IT all that is needed is for the information banks of all forces to be available to all others (Not unlike the Cebtral Criminal Records).
It would be easier for a government department to exert undue influence on a centralised headquarters than to deal with the present number of constabularies. It is very unlikely that, given this government's past record , any more money would be available tp pay for the new level so it would of necessity be taken from the bottom of the system , less bobbies on the beat. In my opinion , for what it's worth , it's a bad idea and more a case of being seen to do something than actually doing something.
You mean like the "new" Border Police? Fair one.
 
#11
Werewolf said:
Bad_Crow said:
It might be a good idea to divvy up all that money that some slightly larger forces are getting to beef up others.

As for the Special Cons i don't think the line bobby would be happy with being more reliant on them. In the same way as The army doesn't like relying on the TA.
You think Plod would be happier relying on PCSO's? At least Specials have police powers of arrest, use of force etc. PCSO's are a waste of uniform - not just my opinion, the opinion of every serving copper I've met and most of them on ARRSE too.

As for Regular Army relying on TA; if you prefer, all TA could just stay at home. I'm sure the Army would hardly notice the differance... :roll:
Well your obviously very touchy aren't you. Read what i said again, in fact i'll put it into plain wording so you don't get confused.

1) Plod only wants to work with plod. Not PCSO's or specials PLOD!
1a) However due to poor manning and policing on the cheap (POTC) they have to work with specials and PCSO who aren't the best trained but do their best (well ideally)

The army is a big organisation. However is still struggling to fill places on tours so relys on the TA who we all know do a stirling job. However if you ask the Army whether they'd like to recruit/retain more and go out as a single regular unit and leave the TA at home on Rear Party what do you think they'd say to the idea.

I wasn't having a dig at the Reserve forces I was simply saying TA on ops aint the preffered option.

Now if you don't like that one, tough sh1t!
 
#12
It seems simple

The English Police Force
The Scots Constabulary
The Cymru whatever
PSNI

all ran from a central location i.e; Land HQ then broken down into a Vaguely similar regimental system. Less oppurtunities for top brass promotion meaning more bobbies on the beat.
 
#13
Bad_Crow said:
Werewolf said:
Bad_Crow said:
It might be a good idea to divvy up all that money that some slightly larger forces are getting to beef up others.

As for the Special Cons i don't think the line bobby would be happy with being more reliant on them. In the same way as The army doesn't like relying on the TA.
You think Plod would be happier relying on PCSO's? At least Specials have police powers of arrest, use of force etc. PCSO's are a waste of uniform - not just my opinion, the opinion of every serving copper I've met and most of them on ARRSE too.

As for Regular Army relying on TA; if you prefer, all TA could just stay at home. I'm sure the Army would hardly notice the differance... :roll:
Well your obviously very touchy aren't you. Read what i said again, in fact i'll put it into plain wording so you don't get confused.

1) Plod only wants to work with plod. Not PCSO's or specials PLOD!
1a) However due to poor manning and policing on the cheap (POTC) they have to work with specials and PCSO who aren't the best trained but do their best (well ideally)

The army is a big organisation. However is still struggling to fill places on tours so relys on the TA who we all know do a stirling job. However if you ask the Army whether they'd like to recruit/retain more and go out as a single regular unit and leave the TA at home on Rear Party what do you think they'd say to the idea.

I wasn't having a dig at the Reserve forces I was simply saying TA on ops aint the preffered option.

Now if you don't like that one, tough sh1t!
Yeah, and I'd like to sh@g Adele Silva, win the EuroMillions and score the winning goal for Scotland in the World Cup Final.

News flash, son - it ain't a perfect world, or even close to one. You can only p1ss with the dick you've got.

Looking for sympathy? You'll find it in the dictionary, in between sh1t and syphalis.

Now, just so there's no hard feelings, allow me to buy you a hot, sweet cup of Shut The Fcuk Up. :twisted:
 
#14
Werewolf said:
Bad_Crow said:
Werewolf said:
Bad_Crow said:
It might be a good idea to divvy up all that money that some slightly larger forces are getting to beef up others.

As for the Special Cons i don't think the line bobby would be happy with being more reliant on them. In the same way as The army doesn't like relying on the TA.
You think Plod would be happier relying on PCSO's? At least Specials have police powers of arrest, use of force etc. PCSO's are a waste of uniform - not just my opinion, the opinion of every serving copper I've met and most of them on ARRSE too.

As for Regular Army relying on TA; if you prefer, all TA could just stay at home. I'm sure the Army would hardly notice the differance... :roll:
Well your obviously very touchy aren't you. Read what i said again, in fact i'll put it into plain wording so you don't get confused.

1) Plod only wants to work with plod. Not PCSO's or specials PLOD!
1a) However due to poor manning and policing on the cheap (POTC) they have to work with specials and PCSO who aren't the best trained but do their best (well ideally)

The army is a big organisation. However is still struggling to fill places on tours so relys on the TA who we all know do a stirling job. However if you ask the Army whether they'd like to recruit/retain more and go out as a single regular unit and leave the TA at home on Rear Party what do you think they'd say to the idea.

I wasn't having a dig at the Reserve forces I was simply saying TA on ops aint the preffered option.

Now if you don't like that one, tough sh1t!
Yeah, and I'd like to sh@g Adele Silva, win the EuroMillions and score the winning goal for Scotland in the World Cup Final.

News flash, son - it ain't a perfect world, or even close to one. You can only p1ss with the dick you've got.

Looking for sympathy? You'll find it in the dictionary, in between sh1t and syphalis.

Now, just so there's no hard feelings, allow me to buy you a hot, sweet cup of Shut The Fcuk Up. :twisted:
Precisely my point. Which you would have noticed if you weren't getting your knob ready for a TA/Regular army p1ssing test, which you won't be getting off me.

So all in all i shall leave it on this note, Lick my ring piece when you give me my cup! :D
 
#15
BuckFelize said:
The advance of technology has pretty much rendered the original raison d'être of small county constabularies obsolete. Is the UK big enough to warrant forty-odd forces?
Big does not mean better - in fact, if you look across the public sector, it generally means poorer service across the piece, gross inefficiencies and waste, and with those areas seen as less important having no voice and no empowerment.

The key to improving police effectiveness is amongst other things:

1. Politicians removing unecessary bureaucracy thereby creating additional headroom within existing resource boundaries.

2. Info sharing.

3. Local empowerment through removal of centralised targets.

4. Changing the name from service to force.

5. Employing policemen that are fit for role instead of employing the physically and mentally inept to meet diversity targets.

6. Sacking virtually all those creatures currently filling the higher command slots and henceforth filling them with police officers rather than social workers and liberals.

PAW
 
#16
Bad_Crow said:
Werewolf said:
Bad_Crow said:
Werewolf said:
Bad_Crow said:
It might be a good idea to divvy up all that money that some slightly larger forces are getting to beef up others.

As for the Special Cons i don't think the line bobby would be happy with being more reliant on them. In the same way as The army doesn't like relying on the TA.
You think Plod would be happier relying on PCSO's? At least Specials have police powers of arrest, use of force etc. PCSO's are a waste of uniform - not just my opinion, the opinion of every serving copper I've met and most of them on ARRSE too.

As for Regular Army relying on TA; if you prefer, all TA could just stay at home. I'm sure the Army would hardly notice the differance... :roll:
Well your obviously very touchy aren't you. Read what i said again, in fact i'll put it into plain wording so you don't get confused.

1) Plod only wants to work with plod. Not PCSO's or specials PLOD!
1a) However due to poor manning and policing on the cheap (POTC) they have to work with specials and PCSO who aren't the best trained but do their best (well ideally)

The army is a big organisation. However is still struggling to fill places on tours so relys on the TA who we all know do a stirling job. However if you ask the Army whether they'd like to recruit/retain more and go out as a single regular unit and leave the TA at home on Rear Party what do you think they'd say to the idea.

I wasn't having a dig at the Reserve forces I was simply saying TA on ops aint the preffered option.

Now if you don't like that one, tough sh1t!
Yeah, and I'd like to sh@g Adele Silva, win the EuroMillions and score the winning goal for Scotland in the World Cup Final.

News flash, son - it ain't a perfect world, or even close to one. You can only p1ss with the dick you've got.

Looking for sympathy? You'll find it in the dictionary, in between sh1t and syphalis.

Now, just so there's no hard feelings, allow me to buy you a hot, sweet cup of Shut The Fcuk Up. :twisted:
Precisely my point. Which you would have noticed if you weren't getting your knob ready for a TA/Regular army p1ssing test, which you won't be getting off me.

So all in all i shall leave it on this note, Lick my ring piece when you give me my cup! :D
Just don't ask what I stirred it with! :twisted:
 
#17
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
BuckFelize said:
The advance of technology has pretty much rendered the original raison d'être of small county constabularies obsolete. Is the UK big enough to warrant forty-odd forces?
Big does not mean better - in fact, if you look across the public sector, it generally means poorer service across the piece, gross inefficiencies and waste, and with those areas seen as less important having no voice and no empowerment.

The key to improving police effectiveness is amongst other things:

1. Politicians removing unecessary bureaucracy thereby creating additional headroom within existing resource boundaries.

2. Info sharing.

3. Local empowerment through removal of centralised targets.

4. Changing the name from service to force.

5. Employing policemen that are fit for role instead of employing the physically and mentally inept to meet diversity targets.

6. Sacking virtually all those creatures currently filling the higher command slots and henceforth filling them with police officers rather than social workers and liberals.

PAW
I agree with everything said, particularly points 5 and 6 - lets have policemen ansd women who can do the job and Top Cops who are thieftakers instead of politicians (of a pinkish hue).

This proposal stinks of cutbacks and more central control.
 
#18
As a retired ex-Met officer, after 30 years service (and army before that), I partially agree with the opening statement on this topic.

Britain is the only country in Europe and the US that does not have a National law enforcement agency. Sure we have the Anti-Terrorist Command (Metropolitan Police) and NCIS, but not a true national force.

Some things are best done at a local level and others, like terrorism, public order, serious organised crime etc should be tackled at a national level.

The biggest obstruction to reform is ACPO, the Chief Police Officers Association and the Local Authorities, who want to retain influence over their force. In other words, vested interests and retention of power. ACPO are always banging on about 'change' except when it arrives in their back yards. Example; the last attempt at force size reduction and the abolition of certain layers of senior ranks, were all opposed. They are the ones who don't like change and are the dinosaurs here. The last thing they want is a some form of national force with a new Chief Constable/Commisioner/Director, in charge. That new post would put all of them in the '2nd division'.

The best model I would suggest in the one used in Germany. They have the Landespolizie (equivalent to our county police forces) and the BKA, (BundesKriminalAmpt) a national detective force to deal with those matters not dealt with by the local forces.

We all know about the FBI and the Australian Federal Police, which are other examples. I do not agree with the French model which was designed between their MOD (Gendarmerie) and their Home Office (Police National). A crazy system based on the size of the population in each town.

Lastly, I agree about the Special Constabulary. Most that I met were keen and just wanted to do a good job, to the best of their abilities. With proper support and funding they could have been a sizeable force to be reckoned with. Look to the Ulster Special Constabulary, who were efficient and a thorn in fighting the IRA. (No politics here please).
 

JINGO

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#19
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
BuckFelize said:
The advance of technology has pretty much rendered the original raison d'être of small county constabularies obsolete. Is the UK big enough to warrant forty-odd forces?
Big does not mean better - in fact, if you look across the public sector, it generally means poorer service across the piece, gross inefficiencies and waste, and with those areas seen as less important having no voice and no empowerment.

The key to improving police effectiveness is amongst other things:

1. Politicians removing unecessary bureaucracy thereby creating additional headroom within existing resource boundaries.

2. Info sharing.

3. Local empowerment through removal of centralised targets.

4. Changing the name from service to force.

5. Employing policemen that are fit for role instead of employing the physically and mentally inept to meet diversity targets.

6. Sacking virtually all those creatures currently filling the higher command slots and henceforth filling them with police officers rather than social workers and liberals.

PAW
PAW Got to agree with everything you say, the rot is at the top or making its way up there at the expense of the real Police officers. The problem i find now is that the new fluffy training program has removed discreation completely and the rot is setting in at the bottom too.
As for Specials, some of the keenest officers i know are Specials, they are effective and make great sacrifices for no pay which is wrong. That doesnt mean some of them arent f*****g dangerous though. But hey some of the regulars i work with i wouldnt pay in washers. Same as the Army or any job for that matter!
 
#20
Bigger Police Forces means more central control from the control freaks in Westminster.
At the moment there is a degree of local control over local police. I do not view this as a bad thing but would not go down the line some want of electing Chief Constables.
Under these large forces who would decide the priority areas (both crime and geographical) where the money / resources would be spent?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top