|
|
Posted by 5605 on 09/09/05 11:17
On 2005-09-09 11:31:18 +0100, "Richard Dewsbery"
<richard@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>
> Actually it's a key part of the Government's strategy in increasing police
> visibility that most people DON'T know the difference between CSO's and
> properly-trained Police officers. As a means of providing public
> reassurance, I'm sure CSOs are very cost-effective, but frankly I'd prefer
> them to be handling the paperwork back at the station and that we were given
> a few more real policemen on the streets. As "5605" has already pointed out
> in this thread, "visible policing" isn't always what is required if you're
> trying to catch criminals, and an ex-bouncer with a couple of weeks'
> training and a day-glo yellow jacket hasn't got much use either.
PCSO's were foisted on the police by government. As to how cost
effective they are I can't comment. I will say that, in our area at
least, they are visibly different from police officers and our
community has a good understanding of the differences between police
officers and PCSO's.
To be fair to those that have taken up the job, the PCSO's are a decent
bunch who work hard given the limited and somewhat pointless set of
powers they are granted.
The major issue at hand is the recent round of public consultations
which basically came back saying that the public wanted:
1. More police on foot
2. More visible uniformed presence on estates/local centres
3. 'Neighbourhood' policing initiatives with officers dedicated to one area.
Our own police force have been at the vanguard of delivering these
public requests. Sadly, you can't magic up new uniformed officers from
thin air and, as a result, uniformed officers get moved off reactive
shifts to cover these new roles. This results in a significantly
reduced core reactive team able to deploy to immediate jobs.
Additionally, PCSO's have been seen as the cost effective way of
increasing uniformed presence but their lack of any real powers means
they are simply a visible deterrent, not a real one to the determinedly
anti-social that blight our communities.
With continued detection rate targets, national crime reporting
standards and the increasing use of the human rights act to delay and
obfuscate to the benefit of truly criminal persons, the police are
fighting a continued battle to maintain their position in the battle
against crime. BUT I would add this, road safety is of paramount
importance, especialy her in the UK where fatalities, once the pride of
europe in their rate of reduction, are on the increase.
As police officers we have a duty to protect life and property as well
as reduce and detect crime. The kind of folks who complain when an
officer does his duty in advising or ticketing a motorist for leaving a
vehicle in a dangerous position are, quite frankly, of no interest to
me. I've been told "go catch real criminals" by everyone from motorists
to actual burglars, it's always as funny as the first time I heard it.
One of my pet gripes is the kind of person who believes their own petty
level of unlawfulness (whether it be drunken fighting on a saturday
night, obstructing the highway or insurabce fraud) is in some way
acceptable whilst all the time railing against others' activities. I
have no time for those people. The people i do have time for are the
genuine victims of crime and ulawfulness who are all too often
forgotten in the wider debate about the "rights" of criminals.
--
5605 your Trendy Uncle
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|