Does Theresa May Understand ANYTHING About Policing?
Last Updated on September 11, 2015 by RetiredAndAngry
The recent claims by the National Audit Office that the Home Office do not possess enough data to fully understand the impact of the #cuts being made to Policing have been widely reported.
The basic story, from June this year, can be found here.
It was further reported that the Home Office weren’t even monitoring the effects of their cuts on the Police Service. You can find that story here.
My opinion, Mrs May, is that if you don’t have enough data, and you aren’t even monitoring the situation properly, you can’t possibly understand what is happening, and whether your policies are effective or not.
So, what else don’t you seem to understand then?
You don’t seem to understand that Stop and Search is an essential tool in an age when Knife Crime, in particular, seems to be on the rise. The issue, surely, is not that Stop and Search should be cut back but that it should be used properly, in line with PACE and the Codes of Conduct, not to fall in line with the transitory whims of a politician.
You don’t seem to understand that a major piece of work like Tom Winsor’s Independent Review needs to be accompanied by a professionally crafted Risk Assessment and Impact Assessment. Your own departed has admitted that no such Assessments were carried out by (then) Mr Winsor, yet you put them in place regardless of this and Mr Winsor was subsequently appointed Head of HMIC and given a Knighthood. A total lack of understanding by yourself, and others, surely?
You don’t seem to understand that Police Officers, and any other members of the Public Sector, will be understandably angry when you, and the government you are a significant part of, change the law in order to make your pension reforms lawful, and then claim that you have to accept your pay rise and pension package because the law won’t allow you to decline it. The answer to that is simple, change the law like you did for tens of thousands of others. Not difficult to understand that.
You don’t seem to understand that we are told repeatedly, and correctly, that the biggest element of the Policing Budget is Manpower, yet you try to persuade us that there are savings to be made by adopting a National Procurement Model. Even IF this was a good and efficient idea, and even IF it saved money from the Policing Budget it would be a mere drop in the ocean compared to staffing costs. Is it that you don’t understand or are you trying to deflect our attention from something else?
You don’t seem to understand that if you cut, cut and cut again at Police numbers, eventually we will have to stop doing certain things that we have traditionally done. Only some of those will be reasonable. It will not be reasonable to stop visiting the scene of burglaries for example. It would not be reasonable to only concentrate on crime because, contrary to your beliefs, Police Work involves a huge amount more than just Crime, Crime which is now rising again by the way.
You don’t seem to understand that Policing difficulties cannot be solved by throwing a few diesel Astras and iPads at them. Yes, we should always keep up with the latest trends in technology, but as an Aide, not as a replacement for Cops. Also, Technology itself tends to be expensive, so where are your savings there?
I’m not sure whether you fail to understand that Policing needs numbers, or whether you are blindly following a Camoron diktat to “Reform the Police at all costs”.
You don’t seem to understand that the General Public expect their government to keep them safe, and the way that is done is predominantly by using the Police Service, a Police Service that you are systematically annihilating.
You don’t seem to understand that it’s OK to listen to the views of others, many have been there’s walked the walk, and know what they’re talking about, but you and this government in general, seem hell-bent on ignoring the Voice of Experience.
I’m off to enjoy my weekend now, content in the knowledge that you’ll never read this, and even if you did you would ignore it.