I think I'll just introduce a bit of reality.
When I look at the telly it seems to me that all the sirens, blues, twos and wig-wags are often being used so coppers can chase after some elderly teenager who could just as easily be left alone and picked up later with less fuss and risk to all concerned.
|
|
Nothing like an expert......and you're nothing like an expert!!
|
Oh dear. I am sowwy. Is oo offended?
Are there any other jobs above criticism apart from your own?
|
Optimist,
Constructive criticism or advice never hurt anybody....and we can all learn can't we.
But... you've admitted taking your thoughts from a highly edited t.v. programme and then made a big presumption to go with it, without knowledge of any facts.
how helpful or constructive is that?
|
|
i may be guilty of having a negative attitude to the police. however my attitude to officers has changed recently. I was joking with several officers recently about what a cushy job they have eating biscuits, drinking tea all day etc. they dragged me out, busy friday night as a civilian observer. never again. i couldnt do the job and quite frankly wouldnt. it isnt anything like the crap on the tv. a real eyeopener.
|
|
|
|
Oh dear. I am sowwy. Is oo offended? Are there any other jobs above criticism apart from your own?
As well as being no expert on the Police, you clearly don't have a sense of humour either!!
|
|
Just out of interest. MLC and WP. Are you both serving officers or retired?
|
Just out of interest. MLC and WP. Are you both serving officers or retired?
serving.... but the light at the end of the tunnel is getting fairly bright
Edited by Westpig on 17/06/2008 at 00:23
|
Westpig,
I know its off the point, and I'm being a bit personal; I understand you retire after 30 yrs. If you joined at 18.5, do you have to do 31.5 years?
|
I know its off the point and I'm being a bit personal; I understand you retire after 30 yrs. If you joined at 18.5 do you have to do 31.5 years?
no, 30 yrs is 30 yrs.
not many people could ever join at 18.5 though, as the procedures for getting in are laborious and slow and can take a year or more, if not longer. Certainly nowadays they prefer more mature recruits i.e. people that have done a few other things in life first.
The only sure fire way of doing it was to join the police cadets first and then you joined automatically when you were 18.5 yrs old, but that's all in the past now because the police cadet system was phased out donkey's years ago on cost grounds
|
Thanks for that. I wanted to know the comparison with the system we have.
I joined the fire service at 18. Most do the 30 yrs, but as its 30 yrs or age 50 I have to do 32 years. Seeing as we have relatively same pension, I would love to go at 48. Never mind, only 5 years left!
Edited by scribe on 18/06/2008 at 23:10
|
not many people could ever join at 18.5 though as the procedures for getting in are laborious and slow and can take a year or more if not longer. Certainly nowadays they prefer more mature recruits i.e. people that have done a few other things in life first. The only sure fire way of doing it was to join the police cadets first and then you joined automatically when you were 18.5 yrs old but that's all in the past now because the police cadet system was phased out donkey's years ago on cost grounds
Not so if you are from an ethnic minority background. Not many moons ago a friend of a young retired officer contacted Avon and Somerset to ask about recruitment and forms etc and was told that there was currently (then) no recruiting. The same day another friend who was from an ethnic background pulled the same stunt and was welcomed with open arms. It may be subject to matters legal. Also a few years ago the Met was fast tracking certain applicants. This was public knowledge unfortunately. Sad old world really.
MD
|
|
Westpig, is it a fallacy that you can ease your way in after a year as a 'Special'?
Edited by deepwith on 22/06/2008 at 12:27
|
Westpig is it a fallacy that you can ease your way in after a year as a 'Special'?
Being a Special doesn't give you any advantages. You go through the same recruitment process. If anything, you would be expected to demonstrate a greater understanding of the 'issues' within the Police at the moment.
|
|
i was always under the impression that the only advantage that most of our specials had was that it gave them the oppurtunity to see if a career in the police was for them as for recruiting from the specials quite a few actually got turned down the first time they applied, i dont think as MLC says it has any real advantage and can be more of a hinderence (but hey they have to get PCSO's from somewhere :-) )
|
|
|
I'm not sure that being a policeman makes you an "expert on the police". I'd have thought they were two different things.
I don't claim to be an expert (but I think you do). I'm just a bloke whose principal contact with the police is to wince when I look at the expense of half a dozen cars and a helicopter in avid pursuit of some teen-age joy-rider.
At least that was my contact until recently when I tried to report a fraud in which money was stolen from my bank account, only to be told that the police don't record reports of such crime from the public any longer. Now you're the expert so tell me what you make of that. Or rather don't, because it's indefensible.
And I'm entirely in sympathy with what Westpig says. I know quite well how selective TV can be. But you (ie the police) let yourselves be filmed and when you do that you offer everyone the chance to have an opinion. If you don't adequately demonstrate the complexity of your jobs you have to look to yourselves.
|
I don't claim to be an expert (but I think you do). I'm just a bloke whose principal
contact with the police is to wince when I look at the expense of half a dozen cars and
a helicopter in avid pursuit of some teen-age joy-rider.
what's the alternative? If you let people go and do what they like and did not pursue them, then every oik that wanted to do anything at all that was illegal would simply hop in a car or on a motorcycle and off they'd go with impunity...we'd then have anarchy. Don't know whether or not you've been watching The Interceptors, but IMO Essex Police absoluteley have the right way of doing things...properly train their staff and give them the right tools to do the job...most other places fudge the issue due to the monetary costs...the modern way of doing things seems to be tie one hand behind your back, give you loads of H&S weariness, loads of targets, loads of forms and still moan when the job's not done. Still at least it's good to have the public on your side, they understand
...:-)At least that was my contact until recently when I tried to report a fraud in which money was stolen from my bank account only to be told that the police don't record reports of such crime from the public any longer. Now you're the expert so tell me what you make of that. Or rather don't because it's indefensible.
I think fraud should be investigated, but over the years it hasn't and now with an Act of Parliament there's no real requirement to in many cases. That legislation has been introduced by MPs voted for by the public in a democracy. The reason why as stated on a previous thread is a matter of 'needs must' and concentrating on other priorities.
|
I think fraud should be investigated, but over the years it hasn't and now with an Act of Parliament there's no real requirement to in many cases. That legislation has been introduced by MPs voted for by the public in a democracy.>>
No, that's not right but it's what I was told by my local force and quoted it on here. It's an agreement between ACPO and the banks. Non-statutory. No vote. No democracy. I was a fool to believe what I was told and pass it on as fact. Look at the Home Office identity-theft.org.uk site and you'll see what I mean.
There are various knock-on effects which I won't go on about because they're not motoring related. Have a look at the site, WP. Read and weep.
|
Card victims told 'don't call police'
Sean Poulter, Daily Mail
30 March 2007
Victims of debit and credit card fraud are being told not to bother reporting the crime to police.
A change in the law means that from Sunday they should contact their bank instead.
The move was called 'astounding' by security experts, who suggest it amounts to the privatisation of the justice system. They said it appeared to be an attempt by Government, police and banks to push the crime - which costs the nation £428m a year - under the carpet.
The changes, hidden in the small print of the 2006 Fraud Act, cover any deception involving cheques, plastic cards or online transactions. They come into force on 1 April.
Banks will be responsible for collating fraud figures and passing these to police, together with any evidence they uncover of major criminal gangs. But critics suspect the banks will be able to manipulate card fraud figures to mislead the public about the severity of the issue.
They also warned that police teams with expertise in investigating card fraud are being disbanded. Last year, there were 700,000 individual cases of card fraud, with the average loss totalling £608.
The changes were spelt out by The Association of Payment Clearing Services (Apacs), which is the trade body for the plastic card operations of the big banks and credit card companies.
It said: 'In most cases consumers will be required to report instances of this type of fraud straight to their bank or building society and not to the police.
'It will be up to the financial institution involved, and not the account holder, to pass details of the relevant crime on to police.'
The group's communications director, Sandra Quinn, insisted the changes were an attempt to cut bureaucracy.
'This change simply removes an additional level of reporting and will provide greater consistency for the reporting of fraud losses in the UK,' she added.
'Apacs will provide the Home Office with the industry's fraud figures for cheque, plastic and online banking fraud losses - these losses will then be published as part of the Government's annual crime figures, thereby giving a more realistic picture of the scale of this type of crime.'
Where a card is taken as a result of a second crime, such as the theft of a wallet or burglary, these second crimes should continue to be reported to the police. Miss Quinn added: 'The threat of fraud is, unfortunately, a part of our daily lives . . . the industry remains committed to a multi-layered approach to tackling card fraud.'
Card fraud expert Andrew Goodwill, managing director of the security firm Early Warning UK, condemned the shift in responsibility as 'good news for plastic cheats'. He added: 'Our police officers receive some of the best training in the world when it comes to collecting evidence of fraud.
'Why are we now being shortchanged by allowing the banks to collect this evidence? Fraud is a criminal offence. What extra training will bank officials receive to do the same job? I doubt any. With the banks then reporting these crimes en masse, will the banks report all instances of card fraud to the police in this way or will they pick and choose and just report the ones where they suffer a loss? If the banks don't report all card fraud, simply writing some of it off, the result will be a distortion of the extent of credit card crime.'
And he added: 'The problem is that the fraud is increasing rapidly and the police just do not have the resources to cope. Rather than give the police the tools to deal with this, the Home Office has hived the problem off to the banks and tried to bury it. If the criminals see that the police are no longer investigating most card fraud and it is treated as merely a commercial issue, then the problem will inevitably increase.
'The criminals will take the view there is much less of a risk of being caught.'
|
The changes, hidden in the small print of the 2006 Fraud Act, cover any deception involving cheques, plastic cards or online transactions. They come into force on 1 April. >>
Thanks for this.
I did look at the Fraud Act of 2006 but couldn't find this. I don't see how anyone can legislate in such a way that I'm not allowed to report a crime of theft. I still think it's policy rather than statute until someone shows me the page. The Home Office, ACPO, banks thing came into force from 1 April 2007. Not in Scotland, by the way.
So if I have my car stolen and the insurance company will pay out, why not leave it to them to record and report the crime? Ditto if my house is broken into.
Edited by Webmaster on 19/06/2008 at 22:32
|
|
are you really surprised that the govt wanted fraud off the radar after all they are the biggest culprits
|
|
snipquote!what's the alternative? If you let people go and do what they like and did not pursue them then every oik that wanted to do anything at all that was illegal would simply hop in a car or on a motorcycle and off they'd go with impunity...we'd then have anarchy.
Well if the rate of joy-riding stays the same, you end up spending a fortune, and having to cut back elsewhere. But if joy-riding substantially reduces, then the cost though initially high, reduces, and you might end up paying no more.
I wonder which is the actual case?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 17/06/2008 at 14:03
|
|
|
|
The complexities, dangers and frustrations of the 'job' have been adequately described on this forum time and time and time again. Its been said before Everyone is an 'arm chair expert ' and everyone has an opinion, to which they are entitled, be it good bad or indifferent. Few people actually know what policing is really about and they are the people who strive, despite all the constraints and criticisms, to maintain some form of law and order in our society. So I think you can call them experts.
However the comment "............when I look at the expense of half a dozen cars and a helicopter in avid pursuit of some teen-age joy-rider." is typical of those so called experts who pass comment and has no substance. Firstly, in this country you will never see half a dozen cars and helicopter chasing except in a carefully coordinated Pursuit Management scenario on a motorway. 'Teenage joyrider' - unless you are blessed with being able to look into the future then the outcome is not known until the conclusion.
So I'm afraid your comment is shallow.
|
I'm a serving Officer with a very long 13 years left to do.
Where fraud is concerned, as you will be re-imbursed, the bank is deemed to be the victim. They have their own fraud teams and work with the Police when required.
As for pursuits, I think my colleagues have said everything that needs be said.
|
why do people constantly 'blame' the police for everything? the police dont make the law, they just do there best to enforce it. there are many people who constantly moan and whinge about police and often witness crimes and then become deaf dumb and blind and do very little to help. I dont claim to be an expert by any means but from my own observation the police find it increasingly difficult to do there job as 'joe public' are often un co-operative and unhelpful. But still the first to whinge when they are a victim of crime themselves.
i think in general police officers take a lot of flack for things they have absolutley no control over.
|
police officers take a lot of flack for things they have absolutley no control over.
Well, yes. Indeed when police officers are short or grumpy with members of the public that is quite often one of the reasons. One has to remember that they often have to enforce laws and regulations they don't agree with themselves.
A lot of people find this hard to understand though, just as they can't usually get their heads round the idea that the prime minister, whoever he or she may be, doesn't run the country single-handed, any more than a bloodstained dictator can attain that status all by him (or her) self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday evening on way home from work a police car with lights / siren going came up behind me.I indicated left pulled hard over to the kerb and stoped as I was aproaching a set of traffic lights about 50 yards a head.In amazement a vehicle coming in the opposite direction slowed down and stopped adjacent to me blocking the road.I cannot make out if the other driver just panicked and did not know what to do or was just oblivious to his surroundings.I then pulled forward to create a gap, but it still caused the police car to slow considerably.
|
|
I do confess that once driving an empty two tonne panel van, listening to 'sympathy for the devil' loudly, to overcome the rattling within, I couldn't understand why the car in front was slowing. I checked my mirrors a couple of times (no rear windows), and was almost tempted to overtake before I saw the 'blues' behind. I never heard the 'twos' :>{
|
I was in the motorhome. It was me, I cannot lie.
My wife left me a year ago for a policeman. I was in my motorhome on my way to a passionate month long holiday with my gorgeous new wife of 19.
When I saw the blue lights charging up behind me, I obviously didn't pull out of the way.
There was a very real chance that it was my ex wife's new feller - trying to give her back.
;-)
|
|
I am not sure if the cyclist was deaf and/or blind, but have just seen the utmost stupidity. There is a three way mini roundabout with a fire station next to it, where ambulances also sit waiting for a call. I stopped, as did the other traffic, as an ambulance car came out of the station with all lights flashing and siren on. Cyclist undertook me then drove diagonally across the roundabout, cutting across the ambulance (good reaction from driver) on the roundabout and into a one way street - the wrong way. Not sure how he achieved his grey hair status, but there you go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
