<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: About turn, again, or is it again &amp; again?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527</link>
	<description>...not long now...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:01:52 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Weary</title>
		<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/comment-page-1#comment-34742</link>
		<dc:creator>Weary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:27:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://200weeks.police999.com/?p=2527#comment-34742</guid>
		<description>Well, we&#039;re all playing the merger game again.  The last time the whole thing fell through for a number of reasons, and it&#039;s hard to see what has changed.  Firstly, the Home Office wasn&#039;t actually prepared to actually pay for mergers which, at a local level, no-one was particularly interested in.  Secondly, fewer forces means less CC&#039;s, which clearly isn&#039;t very appealing if you&#039;ve planned to be a Chief Constable in the last five or ten years of your career.  Thirdly, it was central Government which was suggesting who should merge with whom.  It&#039;s rather like the owner of a night-club deciding who should cop off with whom at the end of the night.  Some of the respective forces just weren&#039;t very attracted to each other.  For example, pity poor Cambridgeshire.  They were supposed to join in a menage a trois with Norfolk and Suffolk.  Norfolk and Suffolk quite fancied each other but weren&#039;t hugely interested in taking on Peterborough.  Similarly Hertfordshire was supposed to have three in a bed fun with Bedfordshire and Essex.  Essex wasn&#039;t very interested because they fancy Kent.  Quite why Hertfordshire, one of the best performing forces, is so interested in Bedfordshire, one of the worst, is anyone&#039;s guess.  Maybe there&#039;s a knighthood in it for whoever takes Luton home.  

Personally, I think that if anyone is serious about this issue, we might as well bite the bullet and think about a national Police force.  It&#039;s a terrible idea in one respect because it will give the Home Office what it has always wanted, namely unquestioned control of the Babylon.  But that said, the idea that CC&#039;s and Police Authorities still have any control over their priorities is just laughable.  It would have the advantage that we could integrate our intelligence and make economies of scale.  

The notion of local priorities also seems to be a bit suspect.  If you drill down to the local meetings which Neighbourhood Officers have to attend (at least round my way), what is it people (albeit not necessarily representative) insist are the priorities.  People speeding and bins being left on the pavement several days after collection day.  Surveys have also demonstrated that what the man on the Clapham omnibus wants is lots of officers on foot patrol.  There is a bizarre inability to accept that an officer walking up and down your road is not in a position to respond to a report of youths snatching an old lady&#039;s hand-bag on the other side of town sufficiently quickly to catch the little turds.  Or that a vast amount of crime is committed by a relatively few individuals, who are only caught by officers doing the very opposite of high profile, visible policing.  In fact, when it comes to it, I think this whole &quot;local priorities&quot; argument is a bit of a smoke screen.  If the question were put honestly, I would imagine that the local priority, whether you live in Hampstead, Govan, Truro or South Shields would be the same.  I want to be able to walk around my area at any time of day or night without being afraid.  When I go home, I want the things I left there to still be there.  The rest is just window dressing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, we&#8217;re all playing the merger game again.  The last time the whole thing fell through for a number of reasons, and it&#8217;s hard to see what has changed.  Firstly, the Home Office wasn&#8217;t actually prepared to actually pay for mergers which, at a local level, no-one was particularly interested in.  Secondly, fewer forces means less CC&#8217;s, which clearly isn&#8217;t very appealing if you&#8217;ve planned to be a Chief Constable in the last five or ten years of your career.  Thirdly, it was central Government which was suggesting who should merge with whom.  It&#8217;s rather like the owner of a night-club deciding who should cop off with whom at the end of the night.  Some of the respective forces just weren&#8217;t very attracted to each other.  For example, pity poor Cambridgeshire.  They were supposed to join in a menage a trois with Norfolk and Suffolk.  Norfolk and Suffolk quite fancied each other but weren&#8217;t hugely interested in taking on Peterborough.  Similarly Hertfordshire was supposed to have three in a bed fun with Bedfordshire and Essex.  Essex wasn&#8217;t very interested because they fancy Kent.  Quite why Hertfordshire, one of the best performing forces, is so interested in Bedfordshire, one of the worst, is anyone&#8217;s guess.  Maybe there&#8217;s a knighthood in it for whoever takes Luton home.  </p>
<p>Personally, I think that if anyone is serious about this issue, we might as well bite the bullet and think about a national Police force.  It&#8217;s a terrible idea in one respect because it will give the Home Office what it has always wanted, namely unquestioned control of the Babylon.  But that said, the idea that CC&#8217;s and Police Authorities still have any control over their priorities is just laughable.  It would have the advantage that we could integrate our intelligence and make economies of scale.  </p>
<p>The notion of local priorities also seems to be a bit suspect.  If you drill down to the local meetings which Neighbourhood Officers have to attend (at least round my way), what is it people (albeit not necessarily representative) insist are the priorities.  People speeding and bins being left on the pavement several days after collection day.  Surveys have also demonstrated that what the man on the Clapham omnibus wants is lots of officers on foot patrol.  There is a bizarre inability to accept that an officer walking up and down your road is not in a position to respond to a report of youths snatching an old lady&#8217;s hand-bag on the other side of town sufficiently quickly to catch the little turds.  Or that a vast amount of crime is committed by a relatively few individuals, who are only caught by officers doing the very opposite of high profile, visible policing.  In fact, when it comes to it, I think this whole &#8220;local priorities&#8221; argument is a bit of a smoke screen.  If the question were put honestly, I would imagine that the local priority, whether you live in Hampstead, Govan, Truro or South Shields would be the same.  I want to be able to walk around my area at any time of day or night without being afraid.  When I go home, I want the things I left there to still be there.  The rest is just window dressing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blue Eyes</title>
		<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/comment-page-1#comment-34698</link>
		<dc:creator>Blue Eyes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://200weeks.police999.com/?p=2527#comment-34698</guid>
		<description>These debates always ignore the most important issue that is local accountability and local priorities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These debates always ignore the most important issue that is local accountability and local priorities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/comment-page-1#comment-34670</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://200weeks.police999.com/?p=2527#comment-34670</guid>
		<description>All change ?
For another party that&#039;s going to cut public services to the bone, or deeper ?
We can all-change to the third alternative party....that&#039;s going to cut public services around the throat !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All change ?<br />
For another party that&#8217;s going to cut public services to the bone, or deeper ?<br />
We can all-change to the third alternative party&#8230;.that&#8217;s going to cut public services around the throat !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Civ_In_The_City</title>
		<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/comment-page-1#comment-34664</link>
		<dc:creator>Civ_In_The_City</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://200weeks.police999.com/?p=2527#comment-34664</guid>
		<description>Spare a thought for a force not a million miles from my own. Following the last round of failed mergers the Chief plumped for an innovative shared services arrangement, a joint venture between his force, a couple of nearby councils and IBM as the &#039;blue chip enabler&#039; bringing the &#039;expertise&#039;.

The jury is still out.

But then along comes the force mergers issue again, all forces feeling the squeeze of government short-changing. With the bolt already shot where is the money going to come from this time.

That`s one force that has it`s merger options severely hampered, and we all know what sort of results a half-arsed effort gets you.

Still, work continues, even if nothing can come of it which Chief would be daft enough to look like he`s not trying to please the government of the day.

Big bonuses depend on toeing the (current) party political line.

Ring, ring. All change for Conservative Central!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Spare a thought for a force not a million miles from my own. Following the last round of failed mergers the Chief plumped for an innovative shared services arrangement, a joint venture between his force, a couple of nearby councils and IBM as the &#8216;blue chip enabler&#8217; bringing the &#8216;expertise&#8217;.</p>
<p>The jury is still out.</p>
<p>But then along comes the force mergers issue again, all forces feeling the squeeze of government short-changing. With the bolt already shot where is the money going to come from this time.</p>
<p>That`s one force that has it`s merger options severely hampered, and we all know what sort of results a half-arsed effort gets you.</p>
<p>Still, work continues, even if nothing can come of it which Chief would be daft enough to look like he`s not trying to please the government of the day.</p>
<p>Big bonuses depend on toeing the (current) party political line.</p>
<p>Ring, ring. All change for Conservative Central!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony F</title>
		<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/comment-page-1#comment-34660</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony F</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://200weeks.police999.com/?p=2527#comment-34660</guid>
		<description>Just a thought, would it be beneficial to merge all the forces? I see one advantage, most of the upper management will become redundant, but I bet they won&#039;t go...

But realistically, could it work? I don&#039;t mean could it be made to work, but could it actually work?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a thought, would it be beneficial to merge all the forces? I see one advantage, most of the upper management will become redundant, but I bet they won&#8217;t go&#8230;</p>
<p>But realistically, could it work? I don&#8217;t mean could it be made to work, but could it actually work?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MTG</title>
		<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/comment-page-1#comment-34658</link>
		<dc:creator>MTG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://200weeks.police999.com/?p=2527#comment-34658</guid>
		<description>The people&#039;s will is to increase and make effective, police presence on our streets. Democracy would hasten the enabling of that will. 

Yorkshiremen can briefly entertain the dual fancy of economies of scale combined with the demise of a Regional Mafia.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The people&#8217;s will is to increase and make effective, police presence on our streets. Democracy would hasten the enabling of that will. </p>
<p>Yorkshiremen can briefly entertain the dual fancy of economies of scale combined with the demise of a Regional Mafia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://200weeks.police999.com/archives/2527/comment-page-1#comment-34648</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://200weeks.police999.com/?p=2527#comment-34648</guid>
		<description>Beds and Herts spend most of their time setting-up joint operations anyway....at any time the CCs&#039; are expected to marry (another joint operation)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Beds and Herts spend most of their time setting-up joint operations anyway&#8230;.at any time the CCs&#8217; are expected to marry (another joint operation)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
