|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 24, 2024 13:26:26 GMT
The problem with your proposal is that the only people who know how to police are... The Police. So you'd end up replacing the police with the police. Attempts have been made before. The National Crime Agency was to take over certain policing functions. Problem was, the NCA had zero knowledge or experience of law enforcement. So they employed ex-cops and seconded serving cops to sort it out. So you ended up with the NCA being run by the police in all but name. And, as police officers were subsequently withdrawn from the NCA, it proved unequal to the task and a number of areas of NCA responsibility were quietly handed back to the police. As I've said before: Society gets the policing it deserves. You can reform the police any way you like but, subject to the same pressures, it will always turn back into the same thing. You have the policing that you asked for. And you're stuck with it until you ask for something else. You raise some real dangers, and they show how extensive and complete planning and preparation would need to be for the Met to be disbanded and reassembled into an organisation that has the public’s trust. Nevertheless, the disbanding and reforming of the RUC into the PSNI shows how such an approach can win back trust in an organisation by the people it polices. The Times also covered a survey into public satisfaction with the Police… www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lack-of-confidence-in-police-threatens-british-policing-model-crime-justice-commission-fkhv0vhzfThe PSNI was in a somewhat different position: It was policing two sides of a divide with officers that were overwhelmingly (although not exclusively) of one side. It was a binary situation. The reform consisted largely of recruiting more Catholic officers. The Met, being a far more diverse force, isn't in anything like the same position. Ask a dozen people what the problems are with the Met and you'll get a dozen different answers. And therein lies the problem: The Met is trying to serve too many masters and satisfying none of them. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 24, 2024 15:25:00 GMT
So, like most posters here (and most people according to today’s Times) you don’t think the Police are doing (can do?) their job. You must agree that sacking a few officers and replacing the commissioner hasn’t improved the Met’s performance in the past. Do you think a bit more tinkering around the edges, putting a few out to grass, and replacing top management — again — is really going to improve things now? Don’t you think a complete root and branch appraisal of the Met, its mission, how that’s to be achieved, and the personnel required to do the job and retain the confidence of the public, is really the only way forward…? I never said, or suggested that the police cant do their job. Clearly they could, but choose not to. For the past seven months the Met have allowed left wing types and Muslims to bring London to a standstill every weekend as they turn the British capital city into a no go area for Jews. The police ignore Hamas flags, Isis flags, swastikas, and hate chants projected up the world famous landmark that is Big Ben, and the policing bill for these demonstrations until the begining of March was £32 million. The police could do their job, but the Met in particular have demonstrated many times over the past couple of years that very senior officers are far more concerned about political correctness, unicorns and rainbows, than promoting a professional police force. Rot starts at the top not the bottom, which is why Rowley must go. Met has proved conclusively its' propensity to two tier police with it's ''community'' advisors (or whatever they are called) telling police that chants/flags/symbols etc need to be taken in ''context'' and their decision assesses that symbol x is legal , fine and dandy today because of ''context'' but might need to be reassessed in another context. Symbol x is either legal or it is not and it should not be the granted remit of some partisan local religious wallah to tell the police who they can or cant arrest depending on which way the wind is blowing today |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 25, 2024 11:07:12 GMT
Met has proved conclusively its' propensity to two tier police with it's ''community'' advisors (or whatever they are called) telling police that chants/flags/symbols etc need to be taken in ''context'' and their decision assesses that symbol x is legal , fine and dandy today because of ''context'' but might need to be reassessed in another context. Symbol x is either legal or it is not and it should not be the granted remit of some partisan local religious wallah to tell the police who they can or cant arrest depending on which way the wind is blowing today Met policy according to Sir Mark Rowley: Acceptable symbols - Palestine flags, Hamas flags, Isis flags, in-fact any Islamic flag and even swastikas are acceptable. Unacceptable symbols - England flags and Israeli flags. But we don't have two tier policing, right kids. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 25, 2024 12:00:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 25, 2024 12:06:55 GMT
LOLS brilliant ^.
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Apr 25, 2024 16:14:35 GMT
I can't see the point.
As squeezed has already posted, you either recruit an entirely new police force which know nothing and are useless, or you issue a whole host of rules and regulations that the current constabulary will quietly ignore as it always has.
At the end of the day, nothing can be done to appease professional victims such as Pat or fantasists such as Red whose ideas on crowd control don't extend much beyond the Amritsar massacre.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Apr 25, 2024 17:16:24 GMT
The problem with your proposal is that the only people who know how to police are... The Police. So you'd end up replacing the police with the police. Attempts have been made before. The National Crime Agency was to take over certain policing functions. Problem was, the NCA had zero knowledge or experience of law enforcement. So they employed ex-cops and seconded serving cops to sort it out. So you ended up with the NCA being run by the police in all but name. And, as police officers were subsequently withdrawn from the NCA, it proved unequal to the task and a number of areas of NCA responsibility were quietly handed back to the police. As I've said before: Society gets the policing it deserves. You can reform the police any way you like but, subject to the same pressures, it will always turn back into the same thing. You have the policing that you asked for. And you're stuck with it until you ask for something else. You raise some real dangers, and they show how extensive and complete planning and preparation would need to be for the Met to be disbanded and reassembled into an organisation that has the public’s trust. Nevertheless, the disbanding and reforming of the RUC into the PSNI shows how such an approach can win back trust in an organisation by the people it polices. The Times also covered a survey into public satisfaction with the Police… www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lack-of-confidence-in-police-threatens-british-policing-model-crime-justice-commission-fkhv0vhzfdeleted |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Apr 25, 2024 17:19:26 GMT
So, like most posters here (and most people according to today’s Times) you don’t think the Police are doing (can do?) their job. You must agree that sacking a few officers and replacing the commissioner hasn’t improved the Met’s performance in the past. Do you think a bit more tinkering around the edges, putting a few out to grass, and replacing top management — again — is really going to improve things now? Don’t you think a complete root and branch appraisal of the Met, its mission, how that’s to be achieved, and the personnel required to do the job and retain the confidence of the public, is really the only way forward…? The problem with your proposal is that the only people who know how to police are... The Police. So you'd end up replacing the police with the police. Attempts have been made before. The National Crime Agency was to take over certain policing functions. Problem was, the NCA had zero knowledge or experience of law enforcement. So they employed ex-cops and seconded serving cops to sort it out. So you ended up with the NCA being run by the police in all but name. And, as police officers were subsequently withdrawn from the NCA, it proved unequal to the task and a number of areas of NCA responsibility were quietly handed back to the police. As I've said before: Society gets the policing it deserves. You can reform the police any way you like but, subject to the same pressures, it will always turn back into the same thing. You have the policing that you asked for. And you're stuck with it until you ask for something else. The NCA tend to work on organised crime rather than dealing with street protests or domestic disturbances so there is overlap though the NCA are more specialised. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 25, 2024 17:31:51 GMT
The problem with your proposal is that the only people who know how to police are... The Police. So you'd end up replacing the police with the police. Attempts have been made before. The National Crime Agency was to take over certain policing functions. Problem was, the NCA had zero knowledge or experience of law enforcement. So they employed ex-cops and seconded serving cops to sort it out. So you ended up with the NCA being run by the police in all but name. And, as police officers were subsequently withdrawn from the NCA, it proved unequal to the task and a number of areas of NCA responsibility were quietly handed back to the police. As I've said before: Society gets the policing it deserves. You can reform the police any way you like but, subject to the same pressures, it will always turn back into the same thing. You have the policing that you asked for. And you're stuck with it until you ask for something else. The NCA tend to work on organised crime rather than dealing with street protests or domestic disturbances so there is overlap though the NCA are more specialised. Indeed, but pretty much all of the NCA's specialist skills come from the police in the first place. Set up by the police, trained by the police and a good number of them are police officers on secondment.
There is no one else with the specialist knowledge to set these things up.
And that's my point: If you want to replace the police, you'll need the police to set up whatever you replace it with.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Apr 26, 2024 12:21:54 GMT
www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/our-peopleThere's no such thing as a typical NCA officer. We come from different backgrounds and cultures, speak many languages and have diverse skills and experiences. NCA officers work in a wide range of roles, from investigations to intelligence, crime analysis to commercial procurement. Some of our officers come from a law enforcement or intelligence background. Many do not. From the Civil Service to the private sector or straight from school – NCA officers come from all walks of life. Our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. What we have in common is dedication and a commitment to protecting the public from serious and organised crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Apr 26, 2024 17:30:44 GMT
The NCA tend to work on organised crime rather than dealing with street protests or domestic disturbances so there is overlap though the NCA are more specialised. Indeed, but pretty much all of the NCA's specialist skills come from the police in the first place. Set up by the police, trained by the police and a good number of them are police officers on secondment.
There is no one else with the specialist knowledge to set these things up.
And that's my point: If you want to replace the police, you'll need the police to set up whatever you replace it with.
The NCA have an e-crime group not sure the Met does. They specialize in areas the Met does not cover. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 26, 2024 18:35:28 GMT
The NCA have an e-crime group not sure the Met does. They specialize in areas the Met does not cover. Yes, but... ...Set up by the police, trained by the police and a good number of them are police officers on secondment... When it started the NCA had zero law enforcement knowledge, skills or experience of its own. It was all set up by existing agencies. But we're going around in circles, the point is that if you want to set up any business or agency you're almost always going to import knowledge, skills and experience from those that have gone before. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Apr 26, 2024 19:20:58 GMT
The NCA have an e-crime group not sure the Met does. They specialize in areas the Met does not cover. Yes, but... ...Set up by the police, trained by the police and a good number of them are police officers on secondment... When it started the NCA had zero law enforcement knowledge, skills or experience of its own. It was all set up by existing agencies. But we're going around in circles, the point is that if you want to set up any business or agency you're almost always going to import knowledge, skills and experience from those that have gone before. But the NCA is not the Met — the two organisations are separate. NCA officers don’t have the same powers as Police officers unless specifically designated. I don’t understand why the NCA was brought into the debate — it’s the Met that is thought to be failing in its day to day operation and has lost the confidence of the majority of Londoners, according to YouGov and Times surveys. Nothing that has been tried so far has noticeably improved the overall image or performance of the Met. Insisting that any improvement needs to adopt and include all the shortcomings and thinkings of the current Met and its personnel, must surely be a flawed approach from the outset… |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2024 19:38:41 GMT
www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/our-peopleThere's no such thing as a typical NCA officer. We come from different backgrounds and cultures, speak many languages and have diverse skills and experiences. NCA officers work in a wide range of roles, from investigations to intelligence, crime analysis to commercial procurement. Some of our officers come from a law enforcement or intelligence background. Many do not. From the Civil Service to the private sector or straight from school – NCA officers come from all walks of life. Our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. What we have in common is dedication and a commitment to protecting the public from serious and organised crime. If you believe that, you'll believe anything. The NCA has a lot ex-CID officers that think they are the Sweeney and I can tell you that they are very similar in corruption terms to the Police, in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Apr 26, 2024 20:00:19 GMT
Met has proved conclusively its' propensity to two tier police with it's ''community'' advisors (or whatever they are called) telling police that chants/flags/symbols etc need to be taken in ''context'' and their decision assesses that symbol x is legal , fine and dandy today because of ''context'' but might need to be reassessed in another context. Symbol x is either legal or it is not and it should not be the granted remit of some partisan local religious wallah to tell the police who they can or cant arrest depending on which way the wind is blowing today Met policy according to Sir Mark Rowley: Acceptable symbols - Palestine flags, Hamas flags, Isis flags, in-fact any Islamic flag and even swastikas are acceptable. Unacceptable symbols - England flags and Israeli flags. But we don't have two tier policing, right kids. Red it has nothing to do with the flag but everything to do with who's holding it |
|
