about says it all about that god forsaken city

Please point out where I implied the 20% cut would happen in one year.
Yes there is natural wastage, I don't see what relevance that has to cuts and whether they are manageable.
Yes you are correct in that changes to procurement etc can save money, however what you really aren't grasping is that virtually any change in budget anywhere in the police has an effect on the front line services. If back office staff/procurement/whatever is cut, that has a knock on effect on the front line. If back office functions aren't completed as quickly then frontline functions are adversely affected.


In year 1, probably. After that, it gets very difficult. Or do you think that its just as simple as saying in Year 4 "well we made 5% cuts in Year 1 so why can't we do it in Year 4?" You can't possibly be that simplistic.


My 20% mantra


I'm talking about a 20% cut because... THE GOVERNMENT IS CUTTING 20% FROM THE POLICE BUDGET!!!!
You seem confident to talk for most of business yet repeatedly are unable to come up with an example. I'm sure there are plenty of companies who have reduced by 5%. I'm sure the Police could manage 5% cuts.

I'll ask yet again, which companies have reduced by 20% whilst increasing the service they provide?


Ahhh, I see. It's the old "I work in the private sector and am a thrusting, thriving, creator of wealth so I must know more about it all than you poor uneducated peasants who work in the backward, public sector" attitude.
Tough luck - I work in the private sector for a company which hasn't made anything close to 20% cuts.



No, you merely implied it would be very simple at every opportunity


You're a strange one, I'll give you that. Repeatedly on this thread, and even in your next sentence, you state that is easily possible to make savings each year of 5% per year. You gave no time scale. Even so, any sensible businessman would say that each year that cuts/efficiencies are made it gets progressively harder to implement those cuts/efficiencies. 5% per year is only possible for a short time scale. Plus you are mistaking the private sector with the public sector where service has to not only be maintained but actually increased.


Ah, back to the old "I'm a private sector businessman so I know better than you" bullsh[ii[/it.
My previous experience in business is none of your business. You really are grasping at straws.



No

I'm implying that the 12% figure quoted only by the Conservative Party and their supporters is not an accurate reflection of how many police are actually on duty at any one time ie it is more than 12%. Since as I said, it does not take into account those Police dealing with an arrest or any other situation where most people would class them as being on duty and doing a Police Officer's frontline work. The 12% only takes into account those police officers physically able to answer a call at the time that survey was taken. So your example of a policeman taking a leak is applicable, he wouldn't be counted in the 12%. Yet I think he would be suprised to find he hadn't done any policing that day.




I sometimes don't know if you're being serious or not. There are plenty of studies that suggest a 20% cut in budget will lead to less police on the streets. Most sensible people, when they see the Police Budget and how much is spent on wages would conclude the same.





I'm sorry, this is just embarrassing. Even David Cameron didn't say only 12% of the workforce were frontline officers.

You don't even understand the figures that you're using.
But no, it's me who's bought the spin. No, really.





Yes, I know we are talking about front line officers. So was the Chief Inspector of Constabulary when he said "frontline" and then differentiated it from "middle" and "back office" roles. A Police Officer can't work 24 hours a day 7 days a week, yet Police coverage is needed 24 hours a day 7 days a week. So 4 or 5 Police officers are needed to cover one "post" all day through the week.
But don't worry I'll take your anecdotal evidence over that of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary's study.


What on earth are you on about? For a start they aren't "my" figures. They are figures from the sources I quoted and they are the amount of officers and staff who will be lost from the Police under the proposed cuts. What the Jesus H that has to do with sick leave, I simply have no idea.

Since you've bizarrely moved on to sick leave - why not ask McLaren_Field's relative in the police about why he's off sick all the time? Be aware for the police baton being chucked in your general direction though. Police are often involved in physical exertions that the vast majority of us don't have to do in our jobs. Such as chasing a criminal over a fence, sticking their fingers down a druggies throat, climbing into houses through broken windows etc. I don't think it unreasonable that every now and again some Police Officers get sick, injured or stressed out by their job.



I do know the breakdown of the Police Budget, I have the Home Office databank downloaded. I'm not the one needing to provide evidence of waste.


Indeed there may well be duplication across the police forces, some of this may well be wasteful and there can be efficiencies made. No-one has ever denied that. Not me, not the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, not the Association of Chief Police Officers, not the Chiefs Inspector of various Police forces. However some of that duplication might still be necessary and it certainly won't lead you to the 20% cut. Also as I replied to BillyRhino's post, in the past central procurement has been seen as a disaster for public services, so maybe it's not the way to go.

No you're just plain wrong Smokey. 'Business' has made 20% cuts in 5 years and increased their service. You are obviously just wrong and must work in the public sector.


You should see my monthly "expenses". MP's would be proud of me.


That's my experience too.

4 years jail sentence for the pair that posted a group on fancebook asking people to riot.

That's ridiculous. People in this country commit murder and wind up not serving significantly longer in jail, someone posts something on the internet and get's 4 years.

Our justice system is disproportionate.

One of the major problems today is with parenting.

Teenage pregnancies are a dime a dozen, parents no longer have the same power they once did. If a kid can't respect his parents how will they respect any other authority figures in life?

Theres no strong authoritarian figures, so kids can pretty much do what they want and get away with it. Theres no respect. Zero.

Respect and discipline needs to be instilled in a chile from an early age or they will run riot. Parents aren't able to, or aren't capable of doing that these days.

Only one more point to make and then I'm done with trying to explain to those who will not listen, as you have already pointed out, only three people in the whole country believe that this will not lead to a reduction in service levels and two of them know they are lying.

Anyway - "natural wastage" equates to a reduction in numbers, whether front line or back office, with a freeze on recruitment these last two years and for the foreseeable future, every retiree equals one more member of police staff who is lost to the service - some people seem to think that less bodies on the ground offers a better service, some people think that cheaper is better, we will wait and see.

I think people are overlooking the semantics in all those Official Statements.

The Chief Police Officers state that a budget reduction will result in a drop in the the number of frontline Officers. And that is all they say. They leave it to the public to immeadiately conclude, less Officers equals less Police protectection available, ergo we are all at risk from maurading hordes of disadvantaged youths excercising their right to be different.

What they don't acknowledge is that perhaps with a better deployment of their resources, they could still hit their service targets.

I'll give you an example here in leeds. The other year down in York Place 2 PCSO's were talking to a rough sleeper who had spent the night down in one of the basement entraces. A couple of mins later 2 police vans arrived, and out popped 6 or 7 proper coppers to arrest the guy, who was sat quietly on the kerb edge.

Now,I've no idea if this guy was a mad axeman with previous, or if one van simply saw the other and came down to have a nosey. But what I did observe was half a dozen coppers, plus 2 PCSO's, plus 2 vans to arrest and transport one down and out back to the nick. Where no doubt there would be a Custody Sergeant, and the room full of uniforms needed to process the prisoner. By the time he made it to Court I wonder how many uniformed personnel had been involved to get him there..

Without knowing the full story, its impossible to say that this is the normal level of response, but on that showing, would the loss of 20% of the manpower involved result in a poorer service?

PS just spotted [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11601537THIS[/url. Looks like some joined up thinking at last on the idea of a single procurement Agency