Do you have confidence in the police? How should we measure it?

I’ve finally secured enough time in front of a computer to put some thoughts to press, as it were.  Unfortunately this isn’t the blog post I promised earlier in the week – that’s still to come as I need more time to work that one out.

This one, however, is about work and how bloody stupid it can be at times (well, okay, all the time!)

I’ve been running around like a blue-arsed fly this last week (and next week too) because a spurious measure of police performance for our Farce has dropped by a miniscule amount (less than 1 percent.)  This measure is, of course, taken over the last quarter from a sample of the population so small as to be statistically insignificant and not representative of the whole population of Ruralshire*.  I can say that because I have an A-level in Maths and went on to study statistics (amongst other more interesting things) at university.  Then I joined the police, but that’s a story for another day.

Statistical mathematics - FUN!

Statistical mathematics - FUN!

So, 200 people (approximately, based on percentage drop vs total population) have said they’re not happy with our service.  The senior ranks are stomping around like headless chickens discovering KFC are rolling out a boneless bucket happy hour (or their bonuses are on the line) and issuing edicts and directives left, right and centre.  I was unfortunate enough not to duck down into the trench quickly enough and caught an underarm howler right in the chest.  I cannot be any more specific than that, I’m afraid, but basically I’ve been told my next promotion hangs in the balance if I’m not able to complete x within y weeks, producing a z increase in public confidence. Fun!

What alarms me the most about this isn’t the fact that we have this ‘public confidence measure’, or we have specific drives to increase it, but it’s the almost terminal fascination I have with the way ACPO and SMT seem to get in such a huge flap about a measure they genuinely do not have very much control over, at all.  Yet they can’t see that.

PCSO

Working hard - for what return?

Yes, of course, if 20 PCSO’s go out on their beats and do marvellous jobs, deliver excellent customer service, identify a few offenders, prevent offences and perhaps even catch a few criminals in the act, they will still have only had a direct influence over a handful of people who might think they’ve done a good job and be prepared to say that.  Of course, they might hate the police whether or not they do a good job – depends who they are.

Conversely, over the last quarter we have had one of the coldest winters in 30 years or so.  This is has caused chaos on the roads, leading to a number of ‘incidents’ where regular, law-abiding motorists (who’ve clearly been lobotomised at a young age) have done things which has led to police action against them.  Said motorists have then spent nearly a week on the radio complaining and getting fired up by the anti-police radio presenters to the point that a Tier 2 critical incident was on the verge of being called, due to the public outrage being stirred up by the press.

Of course – 20 PCSO’s can do their bit to show their community what a great job the police try and do.

The media, however, can spin a story to millions in front of the gogglebox, radio, newspapers and t’internet – and let’s face it, it’s never going to be a good story about the police really, is it?  Won’t sell.

So who has the most influence on public confidence?  Perhaps ACPO & SMT should think on that before they started wanging off howlers to overworked staff about pointless crusades to try and improve confidence…

* I have to put a disclaimer in here, as kKop’s Ruralshire may or may not be the same one as Inspector Gadget’s.  We’re neither too sure.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “Do you have confidence in the police? How should we measure it?”

  1. Crime Analyst Says:

    KK – Apologies in advance for what I know will be a major rant, but this one really makes the blood boil.

    Fee free to stop reading whenever you feel the point has been shagged to death!

    The esteemed experts at the NPIA are responsible for this latest pearl of wisdom.

    http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/public_confidence_in_the_police.pdf

    42 pages about “Bivariate analysis” “Multivariate analysis” and reams of stuff about “logistic regression analysis”.

    What a complete and utter load of hogwash from CC Peter Neyroud and his army of 2032 staff of empire builders. After 42 pages, I wasn’t at all convinced they had discovered the elixir or formula that will deliver an accurate measurement of public confidence.

    In business, confidence is expressed by customers returning to buy more of what they want from who sells it. Simple.

    Public confidence in the police will be expressed by REAL reductions in crime, more recidivist scrotes locked up for longer, resulting in safer neighbourhoods. Simple. You have little control over sentencing and less informed sectors of the public will lose confidence in the police as a result.

    Something the NPIA seem to have overlooked is how many of the less informed make assessments of the police based on the whole system of criminal justice, CPS decisions, Court ineffectiveness, Prison early releases or non custodials?

    So, performance targeting has been replaced by one single measure, that of public confidence? The Jury is out on that one. How can comething as nebulous as confidence be measured accurately? I have yet to be convinced.

    How can the NPIA preach increasing and measuring public confidence when the the public would be so shocked to hear the truth behind the organisation that created the confidence model?

    I wonder if the public confidence will soar when they discover that on top of his £195,000 salary to improve public confidence, Neyroud’s employment package includes a Westminster apartment — in a block that has a gym, pool, sauna and valet parking — within walking distance of the agency offices costing the taxpayer £23,200 in 2008-09.

    As a perk of the job, the flat has an income tax demand of £9,000 a year, which the NPIA pays!

    This quango is spending taxpayers’ money on swanky accommodation for their top brass while frontline policing struggles to get the job done on limited resources and then have to waste valuable operational police time helping senior ranks manipulate the confidence returns so the SMT bonus isn’t threatened.

    The NPIA spends £19 million a year on consultants and recently employed an external contractor as its director of resources, paying him £296,000 — including accommodation costs — not a bad little number for seven months work.

    The Agency senior managers have faced criticism before. They shared £82,000 in bonuses in 2008-09 and earlier this year Peter Holland, its chairman, claimed £46,000 expenses in two years — including £2,800 on meals at the RAC Club in Pall Mall.

    An NPIA spokesman (probably Mr Neyroud!) defended the provision of a second home for Mr Neyroud and his deputy, stating that his family home is more than 120 miles from London. In fact, Mr Neyroud’s permanent home is actually 50 miles from London and in an area where many London commuters live.

    One Oxford resident commented in the Times : “Neyroud lives in Oxford and was our chief constable. That’s 45 miles from London, not the 120 listed. Oxford is within easy commuting distance. I and tens of thousands of others do it every day without the need for public subsidy or our tax bills paid. I do not think I have seen a worse case of public sector greed”.

    Closer examination of the most recent NPIA accounts make interesting reading too.

    • 2008-09 accounts show Mr Neyroud was paid £190-195,000 p.a. with benefits in kind of £14,331.
    • His lump sum pension at age 60 £600-605,000
    • The role of Director of Resources was filled by Donald Muir, a contractor, from 1 July 2008 until 15 February 2009. Fees for this service, including accommodation costs met by the NPIA, amounted to £296,000.
    • The Director of Resources, John Beckerleg, left on 30 June 2008 and received a severence payment, including lieu of notice, of £64,000.
    • The Chief Executive Officer (Neyroud) and Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Barker-McCardle ) are provided with accommodation as part of their role. The cost of this, in 2008/09, was £23,200 and £22,900 respectively.
    • The NPIA is currently reviewing the tax treatment and will bear any tax that may fall due.
    • Jim Barker-McCardle (Deputy) was paid £160-165,000
    • His lump sum pension at age 60 £505-510,000
    • Peter Holland, Chairman was paid £95-100,000
    • 4 other senior management are collectively paid £535-555,000
    • 2032 staff (Why??) 1258 permanent, 64 Home Office staff, 266 seconded officers, 444 temp contractors with staff costs of £101,211,000 (£91million 07/08)
    • They own land and buildings worth £70,762,000 {Inc Bramshill}(conveniently similar to the £70million Alan Johnson wants to knock off the overtime bill). Private sector businesses often sell property and have it rented back to them to realise cash (called sale & leaseback).
    • They own dwellings worth £3,062,000 & vehicles worth £1,549,000
    • Plant & machinery £3,580,000
    • Communications equipment £138,142,000
    • IT Hardware £28,710,000
    • Web Development £1,020,000
    • Fixtures & fittings £6,797,000
    • ANTIQUES £2,113,000
    • Assets Under Contruction (?) £21,445,000

    Total Tangible Assets £278,361,000

    • They are owed £34,850,000
    • They owe £71,729,000
    • Cash in bank and at hand £5,245,000
    • Cash in bank/at hand same time 2008 £42,254,000
    • Fixed and current assets total £345million
    • Deducting liabilities, the balance sheet is positive to the tune of £257million

    THIS BIT IS INTERESTING …..

    The following are services that the NPIA should be charging out more than they cost to deliver, but look at this :-

    Fees and Charges

    COSTS TO NPIA

    • Fingerprint identification (IDENT1) 32,973,000
    • Police National Computer (PNC) 29,526,000
    • National DNA Database (NDNAD) 9,517,000
    • Project support charges 42,709,000
    • Other information services 70,918,000
    • Information services 185,643,000
    • Exams and Assessment 5,427,000
    • Learning and Development Services 16,840,000
    • Leadership Development Services 6,646,000
    • Other people and development services 12,290,000
    • People and development services 41,203,000
    • Property recharges 22,432,000,000
    Total Costs £285,870,000

    INCOME FROM CHARGING FOR THESE SERVICES :-

    Total Income £49,784,000

    Deficit -£236,086,000

    In short, from the accounts, it appears that they are spending hundreds of millions more than they receive in fees and grants from forces and the Home Office.

    If this were a private sector company, some serious questions would need to be asked. They do not appear to be generating surplus (profit) at all, and as such the £236million deficit on services would appear to be a direct taxpayer drain.

    There is possibly good work done by ACPO, the APA and the NPIA. However, for public confidence to be fully restored, accountability must start at the top, with full transparency and independent scrutiny of each agency to assess its viability and value to the service and tax paying public.

    As for this latest load of bunk, it should be dumped in its rightful place in that round receptacle under the office table, alongside the other waste of public money and resource – “The Pledge”.

    Let the front line coppers do the job they way they are screaming to do it, back to basics with loads of common sense and discretion. That’s all that’s needed to restore public confidence and support from the majority.

    Your fault mate, for picking such emotive subjects! Good one though, once again.

    Rant over

    Best regards – Steve

  2. kkop Says:

    Aye carumba, Steve! Do you get any time to work on your own blog? 😉

    Your second-to-last paragraph sums it all up really – the only measurement we should go by is the number of scumbags locked up.

    Even that has its own risks in terms of misinterpretation, though. If we lock more up one year, does that mean crime has gone up or detection methods have, or both?

    Any form of measurement, no matter how simple or complicated, is always going to open to misinterpretation, spin and statistical massaging.

    Nice to see the NPIA are a worthwhile organisation to spend taxpayers money on, though. They do, after all, perform such a key role in locking up offenders*.

    * For those not in the know, that sentence was laced with sarcasm. 😉

    • Crime Analyst Says:

      KK – In answer to your first question, not as much as I’d like. Having been out the job a long time, whilst I have many experiences, they’re from an age long since past, so are not as current as you guys living it today with all that involves.

      So I have to content myself with supporting with research type stuff, which in itself is very time consuming behind the scenes. Hopefully, all the different contributions we all give will make a difference one day eh?

      I agree with you, the Gaffers are so protective of their gravy train bonus culture, you can bet whatever yardstick the boffins come up with to measure effectiveness, they’ll manipulate the system to make sure the illusion is maintained. All crap really, because if everyone threw their hands up and admitted that it has all gone to rat shit behind the scenes, they might actually start addressing the real problems.

      I won’t even start on the NPIA, ACPO the APA etc… Other than to say that for those allegedly setting the standards, they’re doing more to knacker the confidence levels than anyone.

      ATB – Steve

  3. Adam Says:

    Understanding that you hate to be seen in business terms, it’s still noteworthy to see that Tesco’s and the like are keen to offer unconditonal replacements for what people have bought – you make a customer happy, they tell maybe close friends and family. You piss them off, they tell anyone who will listen.

    I’ve mentioned it on other blogs, but the nature of the beast is that very, very few people are going to have a “positive” encounter with the Police.

    Ignoring the criminal type – I feel their view doesn’t count for even piss in the wind – if you’re law-abiding, any encounter with the Police means something bad has happened to you, or you’ve done something insignificant, but technically unlawful that scores them points to prosecute.

    So, you need the Police to show up quickly (we all feel that our crime should be dealt with immediately), you need competent looking and understanding coppers who talk to you and seem confident that they can get it done (I’ve met some arsey and officious cocks who like to swagger – and that’s assuming they even see fit to show up), the criminals need to be collared quickly, charged, found guilty and given a custodial sentance. What’s the chances of all of those?

    Even then, you’ll still feel violated and with a nagging feeling that none of it should have happened if the Police were on top of their game – people don’t see, know or likely care about all the politics behind the scene, they just want what they feel their taxes should be paying for.

    So, honestly, what chance do you have with getting a favourable endorsement from a “Customer Satisfaction” survey?

    Fuck all.

  4. allcoppedout Says:

    It’s interesting, Adam, that we should be arsed with customer satisfaction surveys at all. They are so easily turned into ‘happy sheets’ as to be a waste of time. Many of my ex-students could be fairly described as ‘lazy, dull fuckwits’. Not much chance of telling them the truth when they can ‘customer satisfaction’ you! Nearly all ‘evaluation’ like this is worse than not doing any.
    The ESRC (academic funding body) has commissioned research into just what you are talking about – why it is that people who come into contact with police think much worse about them than others. I haven’t seen it at this point, but suspect it will be crap because it’s aimed at helping with ‘customer satisfaction’. I may be wrong.

    Surveying the whole population is a bit like asking you and me what we think our our Bentleys (rather, say, than what we think about people running about in gas-guzzlers shagging our 17 year old daughters in them). The IPCC has just wasted lots of money doing just this – in order not to do the needed work on why everyone coming into contact with it thinks they are bent shits.

    You’re making one of the valid points that needs considering mate. Beyond this, it is possible to do the right kind of work to identify the real problems – but here we need to remember just what an arse ‘problem based policing’ can make of us all. One of my mature students pointed out he could get excellent satisfaction surveys on local parks by asking the questions after a free event in them on a long, hot day. One of our fellow bloggers has a different view living opposite one full of scrote druggies.

    We need the views of victims and proper exposure of what happens in trying to stand up against the scrote, how this becomes further victimisation by the system and so on. This can be done, but as you suspect, it won’t. The BCS could do it and doesn’t.

    Statistically, what’s needed is focus on the relevant population, not the pathetic number crunching (which is actually very easy) of the broadly irrelevant total population. Even making this a police problem is dodgy – it’s clear our legal system is clapped-out across the board. Victims face the reverse of your problem – people have deep attitudes about them somehow deserving their plight.

    We’ve just had 7 years of utterly crap policing which included a false attempt to criminalise me. I’m getting round to this on my blog. We still actually like most cops and wouldn’t see the problems as much different from you or the views on Gadget et al. Nulabour has even organised ‘Crimefighter’ sessions – not a victim’s voice on offer, though they rolled out some alleged ‘rehabilitated scrote’. I followed chummy after the event and found him engaging with many known to me. The event was even hosted by the bent inspector.

  5. allcoppedout Says:

    I’ve published an anonymous version of a letter to our farce Chief at allcoppedout. I make a brief suggestion about ‘customer satisfaction’ in it. In manufacturing quality stuff you actually visit customers and probe them about what’s right and wrong with the product. Can’t see that happening in Greater Mudville.

  6. Crime Analyst Says:

    kk,

    Off topic, but I hope you can help?

    One of the issues that crops up again and again from police blogger books and numerous blog articles, is the apparently disproportionate number of police officers assigned to admin roles as opposed to response duties.

    I have collated countless articles where they complain of no parking spaces between 9-5 and how stations become like the “Mary Celeste” when darkness falls (coincidentally when the resources are most needed), as the mass exodus begins.

    This got me thinking about how much of an impact this actually has on operational policing at the sharp end. How many of the 143,000 are actually available to respond to public calls when they are needed most? The figure has then to be divided across shift patterns, with courses and sickness taken into account.

    With that in mind, last month I submitted Freedom of Information Requests to all forces, asking for the following information :-

    1. Please provide the total numbers of officers by rank within your force for 2009
    2. How many of those officers were assigned to response duties in 2009
    3. What are the non response ad ministerial departments within your force?
    4. How many police officers are assigned to each of these departments, by rank?

    All but 11 of the forces have now responded (albeit in different formats). The majority have been most helpful, with only a few being reluctant or resistant to doing the work involved.

    I wonder if you can help?

    The responses received are very disparate, in that some provide long lists in excel, others in pdf or word format. In trying to assimilate all the information, many of the forces have referred to certain Home Office terminology. I want to be sure I have grasped the correct meaning of the terms. Terms often quoted are :-

    Operational
    Operational Support
    Organisational Support

    Questions :-

    Does Operational always equate to frontline response?
    Does Operational support always equate to non frontline personnel, supporting the frontline?
    Does Organisational Support always equate to office based administerial type staff?

    Looking at the national picture, there are 143,725 police officers and 79,296 “Police Staff” that I understand to mean police civilian staff.

    The exercise I am doing should hopefully shed some light on how many of the 143,725 are actually available for front line response duties, so any help you can give would be appreciated. Naturally, I would not ask you to mention your force or quote numbers.

    As Copperfield and Gadget have intimated, the problem of frontline resource doesn’t necessarily mean more officers are required, but quite possibly that the existing resources could be more effectively utilized.

    Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

    Kind Regards and many thanks

    Steve

    Thin Blue Line UK

  7. kkop Says:

    Pffff… the terms can mean whatever the Force supplying the data wants it to mean, really. In terms of my own Farce’s perspective, I would place the following meaning on the terms you’ve enquired about: –

    Operational

    This tends to imply an element of typical ‘front-line’ public duties, so would definitely include response teams, neighbourhood teams, tactical teams, traffic, firearms and the like – the ‘bleeding edge’ of policing, for want of a less biological method of describing it.

    Operational Support

    This would include training staff and other ‘back office’ staff who do not have a ‘front-line’, ‘public-facing’ role. (Crikey – how management bullshit am I going to spout in this reply?!) I would imagine these are the stereotypical ‘desk jockeys’ that many people refer to.

    They may also include, however, fireams, traffic, covert teams, aerial teams (if you’re lucky enough to have a fixed-wing or rotary aerial observation platform) and anyone else whose primary role isn’t answering routine calls but do require specialist training and selection.

    Organisational Support

    This cries out ‘HR’ to me – oodles of civilian staff sitting in offices thinking the world revolves around them. It may also include those further up the organisational structure, such as superintending and ACPO ranks and anyone involved in a role that has nothing to do with the public, but everything to do with the running of the organisation in general.

    —-

    There is, however, room for manouvre in all those descriptions so I think you’ll find some disparity between Forces and which category they decide to lump people into.

    That’s my two penneth worth, however. Glad to be of help, although I may never forgive you for making me spout so much management speak! 😉

  8. Crime Analyst Says:

    Thanks for that KK, it really helps.

    You probably wouldn’t be suprised to see how the FOI officers categorise the various roles!

    No one wants to admit that the response teams might be under resourced and the admin personnel are too top heavy, but from initial examination, it stands out a street mile. At least we’ll have the real picture once we’re done.

    I won’t mention forces at this stage, but here’s one reply to Q3. What are the non response ad ministerial departments within your force?

    “No information held. This is because a department is not regarded as
    being either ‘responsive’ or ‘non-responsive’ since all departments within
    the constabulary will respond to the demands of the present situation. All
    officers are required to maintain full competency to carry out response
    duties at all times; this can be best illustrated by the recent arrests
    made by our Head of Learning & Development (Superintendant) and also by our Assistant Chief Constable; both roles which may otherwise be considered as administerial”.

    Oh that’s ok then, we’re safe, now we know a Supt and an ACC have remembered they have a poweer of arrest, the country is saved! Joking apart, all credit to them if they stepped out of their bubble to get stuck in, but one incident hardly justifies classifying them as Operational. That’s like saying you guys are “organisational support” when you have to stay indoors to fill in reams of paper about public confidence.

    Most of the forces have provided numbers but include a qualifying disclaimer along the lines of “The way forces record their resource numbers is not generic and as such should not be compared alongside other forces”. Perhaps its the old cycnic in me, but I suspect they are nervous the word will get out that they may well have enough resources to actually do the job, but sadly, are too deep into the mantra of “this is the way we’ve always done it here”.

    It would make you smile to see how many ACPO numbers are classed as “Operational” in the numbers. Expect to see you CC, DCC, ACC anytime now turning up at a shout! (Along with the sound of oinking as the pigs fly overhead).

    I’ll take each force one by one, look at the ops, ops support and org numbers, use the “Police Functions” guidlelines (found today), to establish the net figure for response resources. Have a looks at the guidleines for forces to categorise functions, a few smiles in there I’m sure. Lot more detail behind the list, but I just printed the titles and categories here.

    ANNEX C
    Police Functions

    (1) ACPO and Directors – Operational
    ACPO and Directors – Operational Support
    ACPO and Directors – Organisational Support
    (2) Air – Operational
    Air – Operational Support
    (3) Asset Confiscation – Operational
    (4) Buildings – Organisational Support
    (5) Burglary – Operational
    Burglary – Operational Support
    (6) Catering
    (7) Child/Sex/Domestic
    Child/Sex/Domestic – Operational Support
    (8) CID – Operational
    CID – Operational Support
    (9) CID Aides/Trainee Investigators – Operational
    (10) Communications – Operational Support
    (11) Community Safety/Relations – Operational
    Community Safety/Relations – Operational Support
    (12) Complaints and Discipline – Operational
    Complaints and Discipline – Operational Support
    Complaints and Discipline – Organisational Support
    (13) Control Room (Call Handlers) – Operational
    Control Room (Call Handlers) – Operational Support
    (14) Coroner’s Officer – Operational
    Coroner’s Officer – Operational Support
    (15) Corporate Development – Organisational Support
    (16) Court Security – Operational
    (17) Crime and Incident Management – Organisational Support
    (18) Criminal Justice Units – Operational
    Criminal Justice Units – Operational Support
    Criminal Justice Units – Organisational Support
    (19) Criminal Records Office – Organisational Support
    (20) Custody – Operational
    Custody – Operational Support
    (21) Departmental Heads – Operational
    Departmental Heads – Operational Support
    Departmental Heads – Organisational Support
    (22) Dogs – Operational
    Dogs – Operational Support
    (23) Drivers – Operational Support
    (24) Drugs – Operational
    (25) Enquiry/Station – Operational
    (26) Finance – Organisational Support
    (27) Fingerprint/Photographic – Operational
    Fingerprint/Photographic – Operational Support
    (28) Firearms – Tactical – Operational
    (29) Firearms/Explosives – Operational Support
    (30) Foot/Car/Beat Patrol – Operational – The ACPO Working Group on Patrol settled on the definition: “The overt presence, whether on foot or mobile, of a locally accountable uniformed police constable who provides public reassurance and who is approachable and available to ensure an appropriate response from all the resources of the police service, to the needs and demands of the general public”. Thus, include staff who are predominantly assigned to operational patrol in uniform either on foot, on a pedal/motor cycle or in a motor vehicle (includes ‘Home Beat’, etc). Also include Task force/support group/territorial patrol. Do not include traffic and motorway patrol (see 54) and members of dogs’ sections (see 22).
    (31) Fraud – Operational
    Fraud – Operational Support
    (32) Hate Crime – Operational
    Hate Crime – Operational Support
    Hate Crime – Organisational Support
    (33) HOLMES Unit – Operational Support
    (34) IT/Communications/Audio – Operational Support
    IT/Communications/Audio – Organisational Support
    (35) Intelligence – Operational
    Intelligence – Operational Support
    Intelligence – Organisational Support
    (36) Local Commanders – Operational
    (37) Marine – Operational
    Marine – Operational Support
    Marine – Organisational Support
    (38) Mounted – Operational
    Mounted – Operational Support
    Mounted – Organisational Support
    (39) Operational Planning – Operational Support
    Operational Planning – Organisational Support
    (40) Other Admin/Clerical – Organisational Support
    (41) Personnel/Human Resources – Organisational Support
    (42) Plan Drawing – Operational Support
    (43) Ports – Operational
    Ports – Operational Support
    Ports – Organisational Support
    (44) Press and Public Relations – Organisational Support
    (45) Property – Operational Support
    (46) Recruits Modules 1 – 7 – Operational
    (47) Scenes of Crime – Operational
    Scenes of Crime – Operational Support
    (48) Special Branch/Protection/Immigration/Nationality – Operational
    Special Branch/Protection/Immigration/Nationality – Operational Support
    Special Branch/Protection/Immigration/Nationality -Organisational Support
    (49) Staff Associations – Organisational Support
    (50) Staff Officers – Organisational Support
    (51) Stores/Supplies – Organisational Support
    (52) Surveillance Unit – Operational
    Surveillance Unit – Operational Support
    (53) Technical Support Unit – Operational
    Technical Support Unit – Operational Support
    (54) Traffic – Operational
    Traffic – Operational Support
    Traffic – Organisational Support
    (55) Traffic Wardens – Operational
    Traffic Wardens – Operational Support
    Traffic Wardens – Organisational Support
    (56) Training – Operational Support
    Training – Organisational Support
    (57) Underwater – Operational
    (58) Vehicle Crime – Operational
    (59) Vehicle Workshops/Fleet – Operational Support
    (60) Vice – Operational
    Vice – Operational Support
    (61) Welfare – Occupational Health and Welfare – Organisational Support
    (62) Other – Operational
    Other – Operational Support
    Other – Organisational Support

    I bet you can think of a few examples where someone with the tag “Operational” is nothing of the sort in the real world.

    Thanks again for your help kk,

    Kind Regards

    Steve

    • kkop Says:

      Steve,

      I wonder if the Supt and ACC you refer to were the couple involved in the MacDonalds attempt robbery, some time ago? Can’t remember any more details than that I’m afraid, but it made the news as they foiled an attempt robbery, although they didn’t make an arrest afaik.

      Since when have probationers in basic training consisted of operational resources? That gets my goat in my farce – if the wheel came off, they’d wheel out a hundred-odd people in uniform with very little knowledge, let alone practical experience, to assist. Managed correctly and assigned to the correct tasks they can be made use of, but they’re supervision-intensive and otherwise a liability if they’re not looked after, so shouldn’t be called ‘operational’ until they’re at least independent.

      Don’t forget that a Force will consider staff operational if they wear a uniform and are warranted staff, irrespective of their job role, as they could be called upon if the balloon went up. It’s a world apart from them actually being out on the streets answering calls as part of their routine duties, however…

  9. Crime Analyst Says:

    Cheers mate.

    Having left the job in the eighties, it’s changed beyond recognition to me now. The guys I worked with are either SMT and I wouldn’t risk approaching or are so near their commutation payouts, they’ve lost fightting spirit (who could blame them?). Whilst I have my share of experiences they’re from a diffrent age (the Maggie years). They’re ok for an occasional reference but you guys in the thick of it, with current practical examples, add the real weight to any analytical stuff I might collate.

    Tell you what… When I’ve finished tidying up the data (when all 43 forces have responded), I’ll save the file onto my business server, then give you the link. You might see something that jumps out as a cracker of a story, whereas I may not always spot the significance.

    Thanks again

    Steve

    • kkop Says:

      Blimey – I remember the eighties (just). New Romantics and bouffants, mobiles the size of video recorders, Betamax, Walkmans etc. 😉

      Thanks for the offer of the statistical data – will have a look through it when its done and see what I can find. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: