Many years ago my father was a police officer, he was 6ft 2ins, with a hard hat on he was probably nearer 7 ft than 6, as were most of his colleagues, there was a minimum height to join the police, there isn't any more.
They were also the hardest gang out there, you were afraid of them but you also respected them and if they told you to do something you would do it. Now a significant percentage of the public just openly laugh at them.
That woman would have been taken down, if not by hand then by a truncheon blow to the legs, but it wouldn't have been filmed. But back then few criminals were high on drugs, now many are, in some cases they just don't feel pain and are, as a result, very difficult to restrain.
The two kids that died on the illegal e scooter? I have little sympathy, their parents failed them, society should tell them that rather than sympathise with them. Luckily they didn't kill anyone else, people like that often do.
The public gets what it deserves and most of the public stands there and videos stuff like this and wouldn't dream of stepping in to help the officers, that's what we have come to.
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
Yeah I saw that. Although in this case, it is difficult to see how it would make a difference. I will make a couple of assumptions as we dont know the full story. Lets assume that she stole some penny sweets, and the people she assaulted were people attempting to stop her getting away with it. Lets assume it was the shop owner that phoned the police. He would pass on the facts to the police. I am not sure the shop owner would be able to diagnose any mental disorders. So the police turn up and get assaulted. Should they phone a doctor at this point?
Allow me to make some assumptions of my own.
In most cases of this type, the person in question has a long history of mental illness. Something that the shopkeeper knew, the police knew, and the bystanders knew. Simply because that is the way these things usually pan out. Not every time. But most times. Which is, of course, why the Police are being non-aggressive.
There used to be mental hospitals in London-before they realised that large buildings set in beautiful grounds could be sold off for squillions. Replaced by "Care in the Community".
Causing untold misery to local residents and people suffering from mental health problems. And loads of police time diverted from dealing with criminals.
So sorry you feel I am "struggling to make my points". Sometimes, when I have decades of relevant experience, coupled with significant family history, I struggle to explain myself sufficiently clearly to people who believe everything is really simple, and why thousands of experts have failed to provide what you believe to be simple answers.
I really must try harder to explain why a decades-old, worsening problem, cannot be simply resolved...
Try spending some time at a Police station. And see what they have to put up with.
It can be quite hard to get somebody sectioned, a lot of the times family knows better than yer local GP if a person needs to see a psychiatrist.
The problem with psychiatric ( mental ) hospitals was very few were fit for purpose, most were Victorian buildings and hadn't been modernized so rather than remodel or bulid new ones the easy option is so called "care in the community".
CITC works for people with lets say less serious mental problems, folk that are high risk need care and attention constantly and CITC doesn't do that.
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
Yeah I saw that. Although in this case, it is difficult to see how it would make a difference. I will make a couple of assumptions as we dont know the full story. Lets assume that she stole some penny sweets, and the people she assaulted were people attempting to stop her getting away with it. Lets assume it was the shop owner that phoned the police. He would pass on the facts to the police. I am not sure the shop owner would be able to diagnose any mental disorders. So the police turn up and get assaulted. Should they phone a doctor at this point?
Allow me to make some assumptions of my own.
In most cases of this type, the person in question has a long history of mental illness. Something that the shopkeeper knew, the police knew, and the bystanders knew. Simply because that is the way these things usually pan out. Not every time. But most times. Which is, of course, why the Police are being non-aggressive.
There used to be mental hospitals in London-before they realised that large buildings set in beautiful grounds could be sold off for squillions. Replaced by "Care in the Community".
Causing untold misery to local residents and people suffering from mental health problems. And loads of police time diverted from dealing with criminals.
So sorry you feel I am "struggling to make my points". Sometimes, when I have decades of relevant experience, coupled with significant family history, I struggle to explain myself sufficiently clearly to people who believe everything is really simple, and why thousands of experts have failed to provide what you believe to be simple answers.
I really must try harder to explain why a decades-old, worsening problem, cannot be simply resolved...
Try spending some time at a Police station. And see what they have to put up with.
It can be quite hard to get somebody sectioned, a lot of the times family knows better than yer local GP if a person needs to see a psychiatrist.
The problem with psychiatric ( mental ) hospitals was very few were fit for purpose, most were Victorian buildings and hadn't been modernized so rather than remodel or bulid new ones the easy option is so called "care in the community".
CITC works for people with lets say less serious mental problems, folk that are high risk need care and attention constantly and CITC doesn't do that.
Agree with all of that in theory, and a lot of it in practice.
The problems arise for less severely impaired people that CITC was underfunded to begin with, and that has got progressively worse.
True to say many hospitals were no longer "fit for purpose". But many of those were sold for a lot of money-my closest psychiatric hospital growing up (and the reason my family moved to Essex) was Claybury. Sold in the 90's and now 1 of the most exclusive gated complexes in the area-Repton Park. Home to many Arsenal/Spurs players. Why was that money not reinvested?
Turning to the Met's decision to effectively refuse to "police" the mentally ill. I can see why they are looking to make that decision. But I don't think that should be solely the decision of the Met. And 3-4 months seems a very short timeframe for such a fundamental change.
I think it is a good idea in theory. Although I am not sure how well it will work in practice. If you took this case for example, I am not sure how a medical professional is likely to succeed, where the police initially failed. In theory it will relieve pressure on the police, and allow them to use resources elsewhere. The police are used to tracking offenders down, and arresting them, where medical professionals arent. In practice this may work under some circumstances, but probably delay any response. The police will receive a call, they will have to check their database, and pass the call onto the relevant people. While a person with mental issues could be running amok. The system can only work if the person involved has a record of mental illness, and committing crimes, and the person that reports the crime knows who they are. If it was a case of a random, unidentified women assaulted three people in the street, a shop, or a park, then the police would presumably still respond. Also if the suspect didnt have a previous record, the police would presumably have to respond. I suppose the police could reduce the number of incidents that they were still forced to respond to, by incorporating anyone on the NHS database that suffers from a mental illness onto theirs, but you would still have the issue of whether the person reporting the crime knew who they were. I expect they will have to go out in teams, perhaps a medical professional, and a couple of minders.
I think it is a good idea in theory. Although I am not sure how well it will work in practice. If you took this case for example, I am not sure how a medical professional is likely to succeed, where the police initially failed. In theory it will relieve pressure on the police, and allow them to use resources elsewhere. The police are used to tracking offenders down, and arresting them, where medical professionals arent. In practice this may work under some circumstances, but probably delay any response. The police will receive a call, they will have to check their database, and pass the call onto the relevant people. While a person with mental issues could be running amok. The system can only work if the person involved has a record of mental illness, and committing crimes, and the person that reports the crime knows who they are. If it was a case of a random, unidentified women assaulted three people in the street, a shop, or a park, then the police would presumably still respond. Also if the suspect didnt have a previous record, the police would presumably have to respond. I suppose the police could reduce the number of incidents that they were still forced to respond to, by incorporating anyone on the NHS database that suffers from a mental illness onto theirs, but you would still have the issue of whether the person reporting the crime knew who they were. I expect they will have to go out in teams, perhaps a medical professional, and a couple of minders.
There was a recent pilot scheme in East Yorkshire. A few MIND employees were working alongside the Police in the Call Centres. There should ideally be a similar joined up approach.
I think it is a good idea in theory. Although I am not sure how well it will work in practice. If you took this case for example, I am not sure how a medical professional is likely to succeed, where the police initially failed. In theory it will relieve pressure on the police, and allow them to use resources elsewhere. The police are used to tracking offenders down, and arresting them, where medical professionals arent. In practice this may work under some circumstances, but probably delay any response. The police will receive a call, they will have to check their database, and pass the call onto the relevant people. While a person with mental issues could be running amok. The system can only work if the person involved has a record of mental illness, and committing crimes, and the person that reports the crime knows who they are. If it was a case of a random, unidentified women assaulted three people in the street, a shop, or a park, then the police would presumably still respond. Also if the suspect didnt have a previous record, the police would presumably have to respond. I suppose the police could reduce the number of incidents that they were still forced to respond to, by incorporating anyone on the NHS database that suffers from a mental illness onto theirs, but you would still have the issue of whether the person reporting the crime knew who they were. I expect they will have to go out in teams, perhaps a medical professional, and a couple of minders.
There was a recent pilot scheme in East Yorkshire. A few MIND employees were working alongside the Police in the Call Centres. There should ideally be a similar joined up approach.
That Met Police boss talks like a politician. And pretends the Police are different from everywhere else. Which is just not true.
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
That Met Police boss talks like a politician. And pretends the Police are different from everywhere else. Which is just not true.
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
You would think that the current situation is likely to get worse rather than better. They have been taking people on, based on online applications, without face to face interviews. The vetting process has also come in for some criticism. I think it is important for leaders to regularly overhaul their operating procedures. You would always rather have a molehill of problems to deal with, rather than a mountain. He has been critical of their procedure, and that the force dont even get the final say on the disciplinary action against some officers. I am not sure whether police officers should be considered a special case when it comes to employment protection. as a rogue officer can do so much damage, compared to a dodgy employee on a production line in a factory. To make it easier to fire them, means that they would have less rights, and may be considered unfair by many people. Cutting corners on recruitment will undoubtedly store up problems for the future. You would hope that a new leader of any organisation, would focus on improving the regime, in order to eliminate their current problems for the future, instead of concentrating on mistakes of the past. None of their current problems happened overnight.
I dont think the Government have handled the Police Force in general with any professionalism. If you reduce the number of officers by 20,000 by encouraging early retirement etc. You lose many experienced officers from the force. If you then pressurise the force to recruit 20,000 officers at some point in the future, you almost encourage them to accept anyone with a pulse. This is never likely to work well.
That Met Police boss talks like a politician. And pretends the Police are different from everywhere else. Which is just not true.
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
You would think that the current situation is likely to get worse rather than better. They have been taking people on, based on online applications, without face to face interviews. The vetting process has also come in for some criticism. I think it is important for leaders to regularly overhaul their operating procedures. You would always rather have a molehill of problems to deal with, rather than a mountain. He has been critical of their procedure, and that the force dont even get the final say on the disciplinary action against some officers. I am not sure whether police officers should be considered a special case when it comes to employment protection. as a rogue officer can do so much damage, compared to a dodgy employee on a production line in a factory. To make it easier to fire them, means that they would have less rights, and may be considered unfair by many people. Cutting corners on recruitment will undoubtedly store up problems for the future. You would hope that a new leader of any organisation, would focus on improving the regime, in order to eliminate their current problems for the future, instead of concentrating on mistakes of the past. None of their current problems happened overnight.
It's difficult.
The vetting process? I don't know how common that actually was. But it certainly sounds like madness.
Is it important for leaders to regularly overhaul operating procedures? Again, difficult. Change is necessary. But so is continuity-or else you have a demotivated workforce, where the most able tend to leave. And this new "leader" appears to want change to involve changing employment law, just so he can sack whoever he wants. Because he seems long on generalisations, and short on specifics.
Don't get final say on disciplinary action? All that is, is that there is an internal appeal/review procedure. A lot cheaper than an Employment Tribunal. And the taxpayer is paying.
In isolation, of course there is a benefit on dismissing a rogue officer. But, similarly, the Police already have massive problems in relation to recruitment and retaining experienced officers. Without making the job less attractive.
Instead of whining, he could start by saying no-one will be employed on a permanent basis without a face-to-face interview. And by telling the public that police officers, like everyone else, are innocent until proven guilty. But if charged with serious offences, exactly how duties will be restricted.
That Met Police boss talks like a politician. And pretends the Police are different from everywhere else. Which is just not true.
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
You would think that the current situation is likely to get worse rather than better. They have been taking people on, based on online applications, without face to face interviews. The vetting process has also come in for some criticism. I think it is important for leaders to regularly overhaul their operating procedures. You would always rather have a molehill of problems to deal with, rather than a mountain. He has been critical of their procedure, and that the force dont even get the final say on the disciplinary action against some officers. I am not sure whether police officers should be considered a special case when it comes to employment protection. as a rogue officer can do so much damage, compared to a dodgy employee on a production line in a factory. To make it easier to fire them, means that they would have less rights, and may be considered unfair by many people. Cutting corners on recruitment will undoubtedly store up problems for the future. You would hope that a new leader of any organisation, would focus on improving the regime, in order to eliminate their current problems for the future, instead of concentrating on mistakes of the past. None of their current problems happened overnight.
It's difficult.
The vetting process? I don't know how common that actually was. But it certainly sounds like madness.
Is it important for leaders to regularly overhaul operating procedures? Again, difficult. Change is necessary. But so is continuity-or else you have a demotivated workforce, where the most able tend to leave. And this new "leader" appears to want change to involve changing employment law, just so he can sack whoever he wants. Because he seems long on generalisations, and short on specifics.
Don't get final say on disciplinary action? All that is, is that there is an internal appeal/review procedure. A lot cheaper than an Employment Tribunal. And the taxpayer is paying.
In isolation, of course there is a benefit on dismissing a rogue officer. But, similarly, the Police already have massive problems in relation to recruitment and retaining experienced officers. Without making the job less attractive.
Instead of whining, he could start by saying no-one will be employed on a permanent basis without a face-to-face interview. And by telling the public that police officers, like everyone else, are innocent until proven guilty. But if charged with serious offences, exactly how duties will be restricted.
The other thing is that such a large number of officers didnt become unsuitable overnight. The reason they have so many that are difficult to get rid of is likely to be that disciplinary procedures have probably been ignored. If they had not, these officers would have a history of documented misconduct that would make removing them more straightforward.
That Met Police boss talks like a politician. And pretends the Police are different from everywhere else. Which is just not true.
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
That Met Police boss talks like a politician. And pretends the Police are different from everywhere else. Which is just not true.
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
How you doing with Harry?
Foiled. Apparently, I have a 30-day free trial that takes precedence. And I don't want the trial-simply because I know I'll forget to cancel.
That Met Police boss talks like a politician. And pretends the Police are different from everywhere else. Which is just not true.
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
How you doing with Harry?
Foiled. Apparently, I have a 30-day free trial that takes precedence. And I don't want the trial-simply because I know I'll forget to cancel.
Comments
They were also the hardest gang out there, you were afraid of them but you also respected them and if they told you to do something you would do it. Now a significant percentage of the public just openly laugh at them.
That woman would have been taken down, if not by hand then by a truncheon blow to the legs, but it wouldn't have been filmed. But back then few criminals were high on drugs, now many are, in some cases they just don't feel pain and are, as a result, very difficult to restrain.
The two kids that died on the illegal e scooter? I have little sympathy, their parents failed them, society should tell them that rather than sympathise with them. Luckily they didn't kill anyone else, people like that often do.
The public gets what it deserves and most of the public stands there and videos stuff like this and wouldn't dream of stepping in to help the officers, that's what we have come to.
The problem with psychiatric ( mental ) hospitals was very few were fit for purpose, most were Victorian buildings and hadn't been modernized so rather than remodel or bulid new ones the easy option is so called "care in the community".
CITC works for people with lets say less serious mental problems, folk that are high risk need care and attention constantly and CITC doesn't do that.
The problems arise for less severely impaired people that CITC was underfunded to begin with, and that has got progressively worse.
True to say many hospitals were no longer "fit for purpose". But many of those were sold for a lot of money-my closest psychiatric hospital growing up (and the reason my family moved to Essex) was Claybury. Sold in the 90's and now 1 of the most exclusive gated complexes in the area-Repton Park. Home to many Arsenal/Spurs players. Why was that money not reinvested?
Turning to the Met's decision to effectively refuse to "police" the mentally ill. I can see why they are looking to make that decision. But I don't think that should be solely the decision of the Met. And 3-4 months seems a very short timeframe for such a fundamental change.
Although I am not sure how well it will work in practice.
If you took this case for example, I am not sure how a medical professional is likely to succeed, where the police initially failed.
In theory it will relieve pressure on the police, and allow them to use resources elsewhere.
The police are used to tracking offenders down, and arresting them, where medical professionals arent.
In practice this may work under some circumstances, but probably delay any response.
The police will receive a call, they will have to check their database, and pass the call onto the relevant people.
While a person with mental issues could be running amok.
The system can only work if the person involved has a record of mental illness, and committing crimes, and the person that reports the crime knows who they are.
If it was a case of a random, unidentified women assaulted three people in the street, a shop, or a park, then the police would presumably still respond.
Also if the suspect didnt have a previous record, the police would presumably have to respond.
I suppose the police could reduce the number of incidents that they were still forced to respond to, by incorporating anyone on the NHS database that suffers from a mental illness onto theirs, but you would still have the issue of whether the person reporting the crime knew who they were.
I expect they will have to go out in teams, perhaps a medical professional, and a couple of minders.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/police-forces-back-met-commissioner-s-ban-on-officers-attending-mental-health-calls-despite-backlash/ar-AA1bUJOr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6b9209fabbdf44019b54a836d5f161ee&ei=87
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/met-police-boss-over-500-officers-on-restricted-duties-amid-standards-probes/ar-AA1cNKxM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d613625e1a084a68aa8a67412091e792&ei=56
The Met employs about 43,000 people. He says that he thinks about 1,000 should not be there. So-about 2.5%.
Every large business wants to get rid of its worst 2.5% performing employees. Every business struggles to ease those people out. Because employment law provides levels of protection, particularly to employees with more than 2 years' service.
Simply because we are a civilised society, that seeks to provide a balance between the rights of both Employers and Employees. And no amount of a boss pontificating that he has a harder job than everyone else alters that.
They have been taking people on, based on online applications, without face to face interviews.
The vetting process has also come in for some criticism.
I think it is important for leaders to regularly overhaul their operating procedures.
You would always rather have a molehill of problems to deal with, rather than a mountain.
He has been critical of their procedure, and that the force dont even get the final say on the disciplinary action against some officers.
I am not sure whether police officers should be considered a special case when it comes to employment protection. as a rogue officer can do so much damage, compared to a dodgy employee on a production line in a factory.
To make it easier to fire them, means that they would have less rights, and may be considered unfair by many people.
Cutting corners on recruitment will undoubtedly store up problems for the future.
You would hope that a new leader of any organisation, would focus on improving the regime, in order to eliminate their current problems for the future, instead of concentrating on mistakes of the past.
None of their current problems happened overnight.
If you reduce the number of officers by 20,000 by encouraging early retirement etc.
You lose many experienced officers from the force.
If you then pressurise the force to recruit 20,000 officers at some point in the future, you almost encourage them to accept anyone with a pulse.
This is never likely to work well.
The vetting process? I don't know how common that actually was. But it certainly sounds like madness.
Is it important for leaders to regularly overhaul operating procedures? Again, difficult. Change is necessary. But so is continuity-or else you have a demotivated workforce, where the most able tend to leave. And this new "leader" appears to want change to involve changing employment law, just so he can sack whoever he wants. Because he seems long on generalisations, and short on specifics.
Don't get final say on disciplinary action? All that is, is that there is an internal appeal/review procedure. A lot cheaper than an Employment Tribunal. And the taxpayer is paying.
In isolation, of course there is a benefit on dismissing a rogue officer. But, similarly, the Police already have massive problems in relation to recruitment and retaining experienced officers. Without making the job less attractive.
Instead of whining, he could start by saying no-one will be employed on a permanent basis without a face-to-face interview. And by telling the public that police officers, like everyone else, are innocent until proven guilty. But if charged with serious offences, exactly how duties will be restricted.
The reason they have so many that are difficult to get rid of is likely to be that disciplinary procedures have probably been ignored.
If they had not, these officers would have a history of documented misconduct that would make removing them more straightforward.
Thanks for trying though.