People often tell you things without meaning to. Does "because we can" really mean "because it was possible"? Plenty of things are possible, so why, considering they had the entire realms of possibility to aim at, did their attitude manifest itself in that way at that time? Time and time what I heard was the actions, however poorly formulated or thought out, were, at least in part a snub to authority. A snub to an authority they thought didnt care for them. And when things like the EMA are being withdrawn to secure an older generations savings its hard to argue against that feeling (again this doesnt justify their actions)
You do realise we had an NHS 50 years ago dont you? And social housing? and abundant jobs, little debt, guaranteed pension provisions, affordable housing. The beginning to Willy Wonka wasnt a documentary on the social provision in Britain in 1961.

Why? Why should they? Why should they agree to be bound by the rules you are putting on them? Why should they get on their bike, move away from their families, friends, everything they know, with little training and little education so they can work in a fairly menial service industry, earn a fairly low wage so they can buy a vastly over priced home and then spend the next 50 years working to pay our pensions, pay off the debts our generation created, and live in a world of dwindling resources because we and the generation before us have wasted what we have. While we sit here calling them an 'underclass' 'chav scum'. I struggle to see what we are giving them as part of this deal.

Nor is it a given right that the savings you made throughout your life and invested should be protected by people who couldnt afford to do so. Nor is it a given right that your home should increase in value exponentially, nor is it a right that the stock market investment growth you make for your pension provision should be treated as a priority. In fact, id say making sure everybody has a decent, affordable home is a vastly greater priority than any of those things. Yet it isnt treated as such, and I can understand why those affected by it are angry.
Similarly, if you want a young person to have a positive view of you, your society, etc you need to make sure they see something positive in you, not simply expecting it because you are older, own a business, are an MP, a copper.


As is the rebellion of youth.
[iYes what they did was pure criminality, there was no protest in it, and yes it was greed, you dont make a point by stealing high-end electrical goods and trainers other than you like high-end electrical goods and trainers, [/i does this not express a negative enough view of it for you?

But it contributed a view of a society that takes from them, gives them nothing back and refuses them the opportunities to improve themselves. Whilst you cant draw a line between the way we treat and what we are taking from our young people and these examples, I think you can draw a line from a society which treats its young people in the way we do and the creation of a society where this would happen.

These people stole some shoes, our generation and the ones before us, have stolen their future. I know where my sympathy lies.
If you want to treat them like the dregs of society, im not surprised they dont give a if you are scared, if they take your stuff, if they ruin your safe little world. Im sure it is of no interest to them. After all, you treat them with such disrespect why should they respect you and your life or your property?

Still don't get it.

I was raised on a council estate by a single mother and didn't take the traditional university route.

There were choices I made, personal choices, that have led me to having all those things you claim are unattainable. Some were difficult choices. There were much easier choices I could have made that might have led me being the kind of individual smashing windows at the Sony Centre this week. It remains personal responsibility.

Presumably you had a modicum of intelligence though.

Do you know what happened to those kids in your class at school who had less drive and less intelligence than you, the ones who left school with few qualifications and no interest in an education system because that system had shown no interest in them ?

You are old enough for those lesser qualified to have taken a manual labouring job and worked their way up from there - its becoming less of a career option now, leave school with no qualifications and you are at a very serious disadvantage and unfortunately at that age and after being ignored by the system to date, those who are in that very vulnerable state are the least able to understand that.

I would have thought there are other less confrontational ways to express your dissatisfaction with Authority than burning down your local High St Smokey. You opine, that perhaps it was because "Nobody cared" I've personally no desire to hug a hoody, nor am I sure why I actually should!



Nice sidestep. Perhaps I should have said 60/80 years ago. Let us agree on the 1930's then. The flea ridden slum areas of many large UK cities with their high crime rates, poor sanitary conditions, overcrowding, unemployment were areas of social deprivation. Perhaps you could compare, in actual living standards how your misunderstood rioters compare today?



And there we have it Comrade Smokey. I believe in choices, and accepting the consequences of those choices. You believe in a left wing Nirvana where simply being born admits you to a lifetime on easy Street. Yes, some have that great good fortune, I would have made a great Prince Charles, sadly it wasn't to be.....



Youth has always questioned and rebelled. It is the nature of the beast, before reallity and maturity kick in. There is a world of difference between legitimate protest and outright vandalism, as most are aware.



As you said in your opening sentence,[i People often tell you things without meaning to.[/i You're original take was a rather flaccid "I'm not saying they were right, or something similar, whilst not condeming the rioters/looters and their actions.



No offence, but IMHO, that is simply a litany of Left wing Psychobabble theory that should be dismissed as tery of the highest order.



Good soundbite there in that first sentence. As always, the reality of the situation ranges from theft, rioting, arson, assault, rape and murder. A tad wider spectrum than you've admitted to Smokey.
And for what it's worth, I am not scared of them. If they appear in my street, then there will be consequences. Perhaps for both them and me, but I am prepared to face up to that, as I suspect are most normal fairly law abiding people.

That was me. I left school with 1 O'level. I took a job earning a few pence more than I could've earned on the dole. I put myself through night school.

Some of my contemporaries did take up trades etc and I accept the opportunities to do likewise today are lesser than they then were.

But, it remains about personal choice. I had no greater advantages than any others. Others chose to accept a similar amount in benefits and spend all day in the pub and or the bookies whilst i was a tea boy for a few pence more. They didn't make that choice because they were less intelligent than me or because they had less opportunities. They did so because it was easier and they weren't going to lower themselves making cups of tea and filing for a bit more than the dole. I'm sure there are many people making the same choices today for the same reasons. If those people feel any sense of entitlement they are misguided.

Possibly the most sensible thing I've ever read on this forum.

Life is all about personal choices. The environment we live in, economically or otherwise, will always be a contributory factor to the way different people perceive their choices, but they are choices all the same.

It's about time people took responsibility for their actions, or inactions, and faced the consequences, positive or negative, imposed by a fair, balanced and supportive society (which I appreciate we currently are not by the way).

One became a professional boxer who ended up being found floating face down in the River Aire.

Another went into business with Freddie Starr and ended up bankrupt and facing fraud charges IIRC.

Successful school, ours.

You don’t have to. You can treat them how you treat them now. But don’t be surprised if they continue to refuse to play by the rules you are setting. You complain that their approach is ‘confrontational’ yet your approach is just as confrontational.
And did we not have riots or civil disobedience in the 1930’s? Im not sure that arguing these kids have it better than paupers in the 1930’s is really going to influence anybody or convince young people it isn’t so bad. Especially when it comes from somebody who wasn’t a young adult suffering these hardships in the 1930’s.
I asked you a question. You have avoided it and simply tried to label me. That tells us a lot about the confidence you have in your I also believe in choices. I believe that people can choose to be involved in an unfair and unequal society where the lottery of birth has a huge bearing on your future, or they can choose not to. You don’t seem to like it when they have chosen not to. There is a world of difference between legitimate protest and outright vandalism. In fact I haven’t argued that what happened was a legitimate protest. I just argued that it was a consequence of the world we have created for young people. If you want to take a superficial overview and dismiss a large section of society as ‘bad’ and ‘underclass’ or ‘scum’ feel free. It is your right to do so. Just don’t be surprised when they don’t give a f’ck about your rules, your world and your property.
No, I copied it word for word
And again, your inability to formulate an argument and reliance on labelling other people says more about your argument than it does mine.
Murderers will be punished. They will be punished as murderers are whether they were rioters, jealous husbands. The person who murdered 6 people in Jersey yesterday, policemen or whoever. Im just not willing to label a whole swathe of people as murderers and rapists because of the actions of a tiny minority. You apparently are.

I think you'll find that i observed that there was less confrontional ways to register your protest.....nary a complaint in sight. Perhaps a bit less supposition on your part might help?



Actually, you were the one claiming "Social Deprivation" I simply gave you an example of real social deprivation and invited you to compare or do likewise. I'm still waiting for any evidence that stands comparison, or indeed validates your original claim. You want another more up to date one? Easterhouse in the 1960's in Glasgow. 50,000 houses....not one shop...no youth clubs....no pubs.



You asked why should they live by Society's rules. Simple. If you wish to be part of that Society and accept all that it entails, for good and for bad, then I think it's reasonable to expect an individual to perhaps make some sort of contribution to the greater good. Or not, if you can't really be d. What is not acceptable, is those who choose not to make an attempt at civilised behaviour should expect anything other than condemnation for their sporadic outbursts of crimenality. The fact that you express surprise that I take exception to the antics of rioters and looters, is in itself, surprising!



Oh, I think we are bang on the money with my label Comrade. Why so defensive? There used to be a fairly large swathe of the population that held those sort of political views. Most grew out of it, but I suppose some have never really got over the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Again, your assumptions diminish your argument, as does repeating ad nauseum "don't be surprised etc etc"

Trust me, I am not really surprised Smokey, except perhaps the involvement of this [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026465/London-riots-Oxford-graduate-threw-bricks-police-ministers-sons-looted-Iceland.htmlsocially deprived guy[/url.Hardly the poor downtrodden stereotype so beloved of the Left, eh?

As I don't see any common ground as to how we respond to the events of the past few days, I think it's time to draw a line.

Shotguns don't clean themselves you know!

I understand that, which is kind of why I pointed out your attitude was quite confrontational. Simply highlighting the hypocrisy of your complaint.
I never stated that these people were the only ones suffering social deprivation. Im not sure what point you are trying to make other than other people also having social deprivation and acting in a similar way, which is pretty much my point. Sees a strange way of arguing against me by simply showing other examples of the same thing.
Maybe that’s how you feel, but that doesn’t make it reality. They can choose not. They can choose to take everything the can get their hands on from your society. They can beg, borrow, steal, work for, earn, whatever that choice is theirs. If your society is unfair and loaded against them its fairly hypocritical for you to argue that their aren’t being fair. And those sporadic outbursts of criminality can be condemned, you can speak in the harshes terms you can about them it really isn’t important because harsh words and punishment isn’t going to stop it happening again.

And its easy to bang on about the greater good, when you are part of the greater getting the good.


Im not defensive about it. If you feel the need to infer im a communist to try and help your point feel free. Im not sure where I have expressed anything close to communist idealogy but hey, simple people need simple labels. Nuance can be difficult for some people and if that’s what need to be able to contribute im comfortable with you doing so

that would the case in which the CPS said "A 15-year-old defendant has been charged with robbery, rape and sexual assault following an incident late in the evening of 9 August in Woolwich, London, and has appeared in Camberwell Green magistrates' court," a spokesman for the CPS said. "We did not allege in court that there was any connection between this incident and the public disorder that had taken place earlier in Woolwich."

and the Police said "[The alleged assault is not being dealt with as disorder related," a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan police said. "This is a stand alone investigation."


I wouldn’t rest it on your knee while your doing it. With all that jerking you could have an accident

Not to sure what you are waffling on about, but if you click on the link provided,

It's highlighted in blue if that helps....

That link somehow took me to a different (incorrect knee jerk reaction from the wail) story previously, that’s what I addressed.

Im happy to address the story you linked to once you explain what possible relevance it has to any thing

The 20% is over 4/5 years. So you are saying that it is impossible to make 5% budget savings p.a. and still maintain front line services?

Most businesses have already achieved this since 2007. It is just the public services that now need to catch up.



I didn't say it was simple. But to make an average 5% p.a. savings accross the whole budget while maintaining front line police services (which only effect 12% of officers at any time) has got to be a possibility.

You detail the budget and I will show you where to make the savings.

Why do you continue with this 5% pa line? By that logic the Police can make 100% savings in 20 years can they not?
It's got nothing to do with how much per year is cut and you know it, it's the total amount - the 20% - that is the problem, as virtually all police chiefs have acknowledged.


Have they now? That's very interesting. If most businesses have achieved 20% savings since 2007 you'll be able to list plenty of them then won't you? I'll ask the question again, which businesses have reduced by 20% whilst increasing the service they provide?


Not quite, but you certainly implied it would be easy.







Of course it has. For one year, maybe even 2 years. After that I would suggest that it gets incredibly difficult. As would any sensible businessman. No businessman would suggest cuts can continue indefinitely whilst increasing the service you provide.

Also, you, I & everybody knows it doesn't just affect 12% of officers. Because that 12% not necessarily "frontline" officers as Mr Cameron chose to describe it, but is actually officers who are "visible & available". So officers who are, for instance, dealing with an arrest in the police station (so actually are on duty and doing a useful and necessary job) are not counted in that 12%. Also any budget change affects every single officer as you well know.

The Chief Inspector of Constabulary concluded that two thirds of Police Officers and PCSO's are on "frontline" work whilst a third work in "middle office" or "back office" roles. To get those officers out on to the street would require an increase in budget (ie to hire civilian back office staff to take over the jobs they were doing) not a decrease. In fact decreasing the budget will merely lead to that ratio of police in back office jobs increasing as the civilian staff are laid off.

There are several sources that have come up with figures as to how many officers & staff will be lost from these cuts:
Dr Tim Brain from the UPSI's study - 29,700
The Association of Chief Police Officers - 28,000
HMIC - 34,100 (with 11,000 posts already lost)

There appears to be only David Cameron, Theresa May and yourself who seem to think no police officers will be lost from the cuts. And to be honest at least the first two know that they're lying.



If you don't know the details of the budget already how do you know 20% of savings can be made whilst increasing service?

If you are going to attempt a 20% cut in your budget over a 5 year spell, surely year one is when there is the most fat to to dispose off?

12% year one
4% year two
2% year three
and the remaining 2% over the next two years

I read that 80% of the Police costs are labour costs, then the first place you would look is at the overtime bill, closely followed by staffing levels. Put all staff on a yearly hours flat rate contract and review how they spent those hours. ie, the amount of time spent at shift changeovers. Get rid of subsidised police canteens and the practice of travelling back to the Nick for a lunch break.

And with 43 separate Police Forces all doing their own thing, couldn't a single agency get substantial savings on all that expensive kit they need?
Source your total fleet from one car manufacture and the savings would be enormous. Same with IT equipment, stationery, uniforms etc etc

Just a few random thoughts. I'm pretty sure as a figure of 20% has already been banded about, there will have been a working model somewhere in HMG to show how it can be achieved.

Getting a ticked off national Police Force to gracefully accept changes in its working conditions is another matter.

You're right in that the vast majority of the police budget is spent on wages. That being the case then the cost cutting measures for IT, cars etc won't have that much impact. Also some will be unworkable. A centralised procurement system might well be cheaper, but generally leads to a poorer service since every Police force from the Highlands down to Cornwall would have to apply and use a centralised system. This generally leads to equipment not being acquired quickly enough/not the right equipment etc. This is a reduction in the service that the Police will provide. Something which the government has denied will happen.

I think most people would accept some kind of reduction in service from the police if it's necessary to reduce their budget along with all others to reduce the deficit. It is the complete and utter denial from government that a 20% reduction can be made whilst actually improving the service that people like myself regard with such disdain.

Also, I think you'll be lucky to find a model within the Home Office or Treasury for these cuts. The cuts were thought up quickly after the election in order to try and capitalise on the Oppositions' disorganisation and the initial love-in between the Conservatives & Lib Dems. HMG's model is part of their wonderful "localism" and "de-centralise" policies - ie leave it to the councils and local forces to work it out.

The issue isn't exactly poverty IMO, it's lack of stimulus. Kids might be able to afford the various mod cons that their generation demands but if their greatest aspiration and inspiration involves a pair of gym shoes and/or a mobile telephone then by comparison rioting and looting must be very exciting pastimes. Government cuts that further reduce their alternatives might well turn out to be a very false economy.

Because the proposed budget cuts are spread over a few years as follows:
8% in 2012/3
6% in 2014
4% in 2015
4% in 2016

So it is everything to do with the annual savings. “It’s hard by the yard but it’s a cinch by the inch.

It is a totally different proposition to make a 20% cut in one year and for you to imply this is wrong and misleading. Each year there is natural waste in labour and each year there are different procurement requirements. Also over a 4 or 5 year period you have chance to review current practices and make strategic changes to save budget that may not effect front line services. E.g. procurement, reduce the paperwork etc

I ask you again - do you think a budget saving that 5% p.a is impossible?



Here you go again back to your 20% mantra. I am talking about 5% p.a. and repeat most businesses will have already addressed this since the first crisis.

If you are in business you should already know this. Do you work for a company or the public sector?





But I never said it would be easy. Possible certainly.



Why do you state “indefinitely” when the proposals are clearly for a limited period. As I stated each year you have the chance to make savings in different areas. I take it you have not any experience of doing this?



Are you implying that a reserve officer is currently on hand to replace a “frontline” officer who is taking a leak?

The Police obviously do not want to lose budget and to keep stating that there will be cuts to “frontline officers” is an emotional and unproven argument to win public support by scare stories.

If front line officers only represent 12% of the workforce and you are only looking to make an 8% saving in year one, then why make this the first cut. This scare story has been floated before any serious review of where other saving can be made. You have obviously bought into this spin.




Sorry but I do not follow your logic here. We are talking about front line officers here. I think the Inspector of Contabulary has a different definition of front line duties to the public. You can travel around our towns and cities and struggle to see a visible presence.

Your figures above do not allow for any officers off sick (bad backs, stress etc) or on holiday. You are making the assumption that all officers are efficient and worth employment and available for duty. Almost 1 in 10 officers are off sick or on restrictive duties of just a few hours each week all on full pay. About a third are allowed to retire early on health grounds.

Even David Blunkett when Home Sec. was appalled to find that there were 1.5 million days p.a. sick days – just a 1% reduction would put 1200 officers back on the beat each day! (manchester police had a 5% failure to report for duty each day.)






If you don’t know the breakdown of costs in the budget then how can you say 8% cannot be achieved in year one?

To make any budget savings requires an in depth review of how the existing budget is spent. Much has been said that almost 80% of the budget is in labour costs. So obviously you have to start here. But I would also look at reducing the number of police forces. It seems obvious that with 43 separate police forces there is much duplication of officers and many opportunities for greater savings from one procurement agency rather than 43.

I would like to the police to concentrate more of their resources on making the streets and property safe. This will mean more front line officers on deterrent duty and less officers and resources on detection and traffic duties. This would then refocus the priorities back to Robert Peel’s objectives.

The company I work for had done nothing of the sort.

In fact, if some of the things we spend money on were spent in the public sector there would be huge outcry, massive outcry, about wastage. Im pretty sure police officers dont get close to the 'perks' the company I work for give out. In my experience there is a damn sight less 'wastage' in the public than the private sector.

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