Alternative Policing Options

[Bloggo]

I recently read an article that said that the people living in a suburb of Southampton have clubed together to hire a security company to walk the streets in order to deter vandalism and anti- social behaviour.
The reason being that they have little confidence that the Police are paying much attention to the problems in their area.

I have a couple of views on this.
One, isn't it an adverse comment on the service that we pay the Police for that is falling short of the expectation of the Community it is surposed to serve.
Secondly should these residents get some money back from local government as they are augmenting the service provided
Thirdly, what a good idea to enhance what are clearly over stretched Police resources.

Is this where we are going in that we are contracting out to protect ourseleves and our communities.

What do you think?

[JeffG]

From what I know about this story, Shirley is hardly a hotbed of crime, and if some well-heeled local residents want to hire security guards, then good luck to them. They certainly shouldn't be subsidised by the rest of the council taxpayers.

I am sure the police do what is needed on a limited budget in a fairly large town.

[regor]

I think policing levels and types all come down to money. how much of it and how best to spend it.

Don't quote me on exact equivalence but I imagine you can have perhaps three Community Police or six Wardens for the cost of one proper police officer.

What size and structure of policing a force needs to deploy must govern the mix that is used. It cannot help when officers have to be deployed out of area for national/international reasons.

So if you don't think you are well enough policed then you have a choice of hiring some sort of security firm or paying enough local tax to cover the cost of real police officers. Perhaps WBC might like to do a consultation exercise on this topic?

I was going to say police liaison consultation but as it is all about money and tax it has to be a political rather than a police matter.

[GMR]

I think it says a lot about our police service.

In America well off societies use special security guards to police their area. They’ve become very popular. One of the reasons for this is that police have to work within government guidelines. Security guards know who their masters are and work to their specifications. If culprits are caught committing crimes they are dealt with in a manner that makes them think twice when going to an areas that have such security systems.

[Bloggo]

From what I know about this story, Shirley is hardly a hotbed of crime, and if some well-heeled local residents want to hire security guards, then good luck to them. They certainly shouldn't be subsidised by the rest of the council taxpayers.

I am sure the police do what is needed on a limited budget in a fairly large town.

Clearly the Police don't do what's needed otherwise why would these people hire a private security company?

[JeffG]

Clearly the Police don't do what's needed otherwise why would these people hire a private security company?

I think it was fairly clear from my post, that I meant they do what is needed (and have to prioritise what they do) in a town the size of Southampton considering their finite resources.

[GMR]

Clearly the Police don't do what's needed otherwise why would these people hire a private security company?

Exactly and also the police respond to the needs of their masters; the government. Security forces also have the same ethos; but their masters are the ones who pay them. They work to their own guidelines. People are getting very disillusioned with the police services, courts and government.

Those security establishments come about because people are at the end of their tolerance level.

[Bloggo]

I think it was fairly clear from my post, that I meant they do what is needed (and have to prioritise what they do) in a town the size of Southampton considering their finite resources.

Sorry, the point is the Police are not doing what is needed in regards to these residents.
I know it's about money and resources but in this case it appears that there is not enough of both to satisfy the requirements of these residents.

[GMR]

Sorry, the point is the Police are not doing what is needed in regards to these residents.
I know it's about money and resources but in this case it appears that there is not enough of both to satisfy the requirements of these residents.

I don’t agree totally here with what you say about money and resources, even though it is a contributing factor. The police are also hampered by the European Law that protects the culprits first. Also the police don’t have tough powers to back them up. On top of that the courts are reluctant to send people to prison because of the shortage of space. All these factors work in favour of the criminals intent and against the decent honest citizen. The only way around this dilemma is for such security forces to work within their own moral guidelines and justice system.

[Biker1]

I suppose it is a bit like the NHS and private health care.

Some think that the NHS doesn't provide what they need so they pay the extra for private care.

Same for education.

Doesn't mean they expect anything back from the government as recompense though.

[Strafin]

"Shirley is hardly a hotbed of crime"
Yes it is, it has a red light district and everything!

[user23]

In America well off societies use special security guards to police their area. They’ve become very popular. One of the reasons for this is that police have to work within government guidelines. Security guards know who their masters are and work to their specifications.

Very true. The Police have to work to a particular set of guidelines that (are supposed to) benefit us all.

Private security have the interests of whoever hired them at heart which is hardly concdusive to social cohesion.

In hiring private security these people are contributing the the very problem they are seeking to protect themselves from.

[GMR]

Very true. The Police have to work to a particular set of guidelines that (are supposed to) benefit us all.

Private security have the interests of whoever hired them at heart which is hardly conclusive to social cohesion.

As you said 'supposed to' benefit all. Sadly they don't. That is why certain groups within society have moved to the private sector. They only way we will over change things back to what they were is if the police become tougher.

[user23]

As you said 'supposed to' benefit all. Sadly they don't. That is why certain groups within society have moved to the private sector. They only way we will over change things back to what they were is if the police become tougher.

Tougher policing, in time, breeds tougher criminals. Just look at America where in some situations they shoot first and ask questions later. Almost all criminals, even those involved in petty crime are armed. Criminals react in kind to the force exerted on them.

This is not what we want in this country, is it?

[GMR]

Tougher policing, in time, breeds tougher criminals. Just look at America where in some situations they shoot first and ask questions later. Almost all criminals, even those involved in petty crime are armed. Criminals react in kind to the force exerted on them.

This is not what we want in this country, is it?

OK... if we don't want tougher policing then what do we want? Accept the situation as it is now?

[Biker1]

OK... if we don't want tougher policing then what do we want? Accept the situation as it is now?

Tougher, much tougher, punishments?

[user23]

OK... if we don't want tougher policing then what do we want? Accept the situation as it is now?

Better community policing.

Tougher, much tougher, punishments?

For all crimes or would you be selective?

[GMR]

Tougher, much tougher, punishments?

I agree with you Biker, however, our friend doesn't share our views. I think, and I am surmising here, he'd probably reward them

[Biker1]

Hug a hoodie!!

[GMR]

Better community policing.For all crimes?

And you reckon that will help? Sorry I don’t agree. Only tougher sentencing will deter people from committing crime. If you say “no it won’t” then my answer to that would be; at least it will punish them severally for what they’ve done. Bugger it as a deterrent then!

[GMR]

Hug a hoodie!!

[Hugh Saskin]

at least it will punish them severally for what they’ve done.

What does that mean, please - are they all to be brushed by buses in Northbrook St, with nobody there (except you) to witness it ?

[Biker1]

Better community policing.For all crimes or would you be selective?

There has to be a deterrent to crime so I would say all.

Can you suggest some that may require more leniency?

All are lenient already in my opinion.

Some are let out early to avoid overcrowding.
I could murder a close relative of yours and be out within 15 years or possibly less.
(That's an example not a threat!)

Many commit crime knowing that even if they are caught they will not be punished.

Surely you must agree that to every crime there must be a punishment / deterrent?

[Iommi]

Surely you must agree that to every crime there must be a punishment / deterrent?

For a deterrent to work, you have to increase the chances of getting caught.

[Biker1]

For a deterrent to work, you have to increase the chances of getting caught.

Good point - I agree, the two have to work together.

[user23]

And you reckon that will help? Sorry I don’t agree. Only tougher sentencing will deter people from committing crime. If you say “no it won’t” then my answer to that would be; at least it will punish them severally for what they’ve done. Bugger it as a deterrent then!

This only deals with the effects it won't stop the causes. We'd be paying through the nose to lock people up in universities of crime for relativity minor offences, thus creating a whole new criminal underclass in society.

[GMR]

This only deals with the effects it won't stop the causes. We'd be paying through the nose to lock people up in universities of crime for relativity minor offences, thus creating a whole new criminal underclass in society.

OK, I'll go with that for now. How do we stop the causes?


By the way; who said anything about locking people up for minor crime? I didn't. I do accept that people have been locked up for certain crimes where I wouldn't have locked them up.

[Strafin]

Tougher policing, in time, breeds tougher criminals. Just look at America where in some situations they shoot first and ask questions later. Almost all criminals, even those involved in petty crime are armed. Criminals react in kind to the force exerted on them.

This is not what we want in this country, is it?

The gun issue in America goes back a long, long way and the fact that criminals are often armed isn't necessarily because the police are armed.

[GMR]

The gun issue in America goes back a long, long way and the fact that criminals are often armed isn't necessarily because the police are armed.

Our police are not armed but a lot of our criminals are, including gangs, kids etc.

[user23]

By the way; who said anything about locking people up for minor crime? I didn't. I do accept that people have been locked up for certain crimes where I wouldn't have locked them up.

Surely if we're getting tough on crime have to get tough on all crime.

You seem in favour of locking or restricting the movement of some elements of society.

Would you be in favour of locking those up caught speeding for example?

Our police are not armed but a lot of our criminals are, including gangs, kids etc.

I don't think this is true of Newbury

[Biker1]

I don't think this is true of Newbury

Yes it is.

[user23]

Yes it is.

You think a lot of criminals are Newbury are armed?

What percentage have guns, 70%, 80%?

[Biker1]

I know a lot have knives. (the quote was "armed")

I have first hand experience of this in the job I do.

I'll say no more.

[GMR]

Surely if we're getting tough on crime have to get tough on all crime.

No, I disagree.

You seem in favour of locking or restricting the movement of some elements of society.

Yes

Would you be in favour of locking those up caught speeding for example?

No

I don't think this is true of Newbury

Recently a gun was found dumped in Newbury. Also; talking to a police officer awhile back I was told that an element do have weapons in Newbury. What those weapons were he didn’t actually say.

[user23]

A lot have knives. (the quote was "armed")

I think it was fairly obvious we were talking about guns. Do most criminals in Newbury have guns, yes or no?

Recently a gun was found dumped in Newbury. Also; talking to a police officer awhile back I was told that an element do have weapons in Newbury. What those weapons were he didn’t actually say.

One gun, is that is?

Speeding is anti-social and is far more likely to result in a death, why wouldn't you lock up them up?

This is the problem when you start to pull apart the arguments of those who say we should get tough on crime. At some point in the debate they always say "well, I didn't mean get tough on THAT sort of crime, on THOSE sort of people." and their double standards are exposed.

If you're going to get tough on crime you need to get tough on all crime. Remember, justice supposed to be blind.

[Darren]

"Shirley is hardly a hotbed of crime"
Yes it is, it has a red light district and everything!

Really? Wow, you learn something new every day.

[Biker1]

I think it was fairly obvious we were talking about guns. Do most criminals in Newbury have guns, yes or no?One gun, is that is?

OK most - no. but more than you would think probably have. Anyway what is this obsession with guns?

Speeding is anti-social and is far more likely to result in a death, why wouldn't you lock up them up?

They are if they go fast enough or are persistent offenders.

Speeders are already targetted more than most violent armed criminals.

[user23]

They are if they go fast enough or are persistent offenders.

Speeders are already targetted more than most violent armed criminals.

Shouldn't we be getting tough on all offenders though, if we're going to crack down on criminals?

What sort of message does getting tough on offenders that we can't empathise with send out?

[Biker1]

What sort of message does getting tough on offenders that we can't empathise with send out?

Huh?

[Iommi]

Shouldn't we be getting tough on all offenders though, if we're going to crack down on criminals? What sort of message does getting tough on offenders that we can't empathise with send out?

Huh?

Yes, I'm struggling with that one as well; care to elucidate user23?

[GMR]

One gun, is that is?

Actually; try reading back to what I answered to.

Speeding is anti-social and is far more likely to result in a death, why wouldn't you lock up them up?

The word here is intent. Anti-social behaviour is as the name suggests. Speeding can kill... as somebody cycling can by hitting a pedestrian or tripping over a broken pavement, which the council didn’t fix. However, they didn’t intend to kill them deliberately.

This is the problem when you start to pull apart the arguments of those who say we should get tough on crime. At some point in the debate they always say "well, I didn't mean get tough on THAT sort of crime, on THOSE sort of people." and their double standards are exposed.

There are no double standards here user... that is just in your mind. I never said tough on crime on every subject, only where it is needed. Nor did anybody else.

If you're going to get tough on crime you need to get tough on all crime. Remember, justice supposed to be blind.

Rubbish... again this is your interpretation and you’ll find you are a lone wolf on this. No sane person would agree with you here user.

[user23]

Rubbish... again this is your interpretation and you’ll find you are a lone wolf on this. No sane person would agree with you here user.

You've just posted that no sane person would agree that if you're going to get tough on crime you need to get tough on all crime and that justice supposed to be blind.

Selective justice is no justice at all.

[GMR]

You've just posted that no sane person would agree that if you're going to get tough on crime you need to get tough on all crime and that justice supposed to be blind.

It was Thomas Otway who said "Justice is lame as well as blind, amongst us.

[Biker1]

You're on your own here Glenn.

Good Luck!!

It's like a game of tic tac toe - you can't win!!

[user23]

It was Thomas Otway who said "Justice is lame as well as blind, amongst us.

It's not blind if you're only applying the law to selective groups.

[GMR]

It's not blind if you're only applying the law to selective groups.

We are not talking about applying the law to selective groups, but the degree which that law is applied to certain groups. In fac the government do that anyway.

[JeffG]

What sort of message does getting tough on offenders that we can't empathise with send out?

Huh?

Yes, I'm struggling with that one as well; care to elucidate user23?

It's just an awkward construction : treat it like a mathematical equation and put some brackets in, and all becomes clear:

What sort of message does [getting tough on (offenders that we can't empathise with)] send out?

(and user23 - we all do it on occasions and it's perfectly clear to us what we meant )

[user23]

We are not talking about applying the law to selective groups, but the degree which that law is applied to certain groups. In fac the government do that anyway.

We're talking about how some wish to apply the law differently to groups they have a like and a dislike for.

It's generally where those who say we should get tough on crime's arguments fall apart, "well I didn't mean we should get tough on THOSE crimes". Get tough on all crime or not at all or one just creates social problems for oneself in the long run.

[GMR]

We're talking about how some wish to apply the law differently to groups they have a like and a dislike for.

No... we are talking about how certain elements in our society treat others; and from that point how we punish them for it. That is what the law does at the moment anyway.

It's generally where those who say we should get tough on crime's arguments fall apart, "well I didn't mean we should get tough on THOSE crimes". Get tough on all crime or not at all or one just creates social problems for oneself in the long run.

Well, that’s how you read it, I don’t. We are talking about tough on serious crime and as I pointed out, the government does that anyway. If you are saying I am wrong, then you are also saying the government is wrong.

[user23]

Well, that’s how you read it, I don’t. We are talking about tough on serious crime and as I pointed out, the government does that anyway. If you are saying I am wrong, then you are also saying the government is wrong.

Are the Government's current policies on crime right, in your view?

[Iommi]

I'm not keen on private security, albeit in some situations, might be necessary. I thinking of how devious private car clamping firms operate, I am therefore uncomfortable with this 'private' solution being rolled out even further.

[GMR]

Are the Government's current policies on crime right, in your view?

No and this is not just my view.

[GMR]

I'm not keen on private security, albeit in some situations, might be necessary. I thinking of how devious private car clamping firms operate, I am therefore uncomfortable with this 'private' solution being rolled out even further.

I agree and if we had a law enforcement that dealt with the problems that are facing our society to the satisfaction of the people then you wouldn't need private security firms.

[Strafin]

I think that although he is generally an ingnoramus, and best ignored, I do think User23 has a point. Look at the Ronnie Biggs situation. He was part of a massive, violent armed robbery and people think it's right that he be released early,even though he also escaped prison, and profited massivley from his crime all the time sneering at the UK and the taxpayers. But he was a bit of a cheeky chappy so he should get released. The 17 year old down the road doing far less should get locked up for life?!?! It doesn't make sense!

[Biker1]

Who thinks it's right he should be released?

[GMR]

I think that although he is generally an ingnoramus, and best ignored, I do think User23 has a point. Look at the Ronnie Biggs situation. He was part of a massive, violent armed robbery and people think it's right that he be released early,even though he also escaped prison, and profited massivley from his crime all the time sneering at the UK and the taxpayers. But he was a bit of a cheeky chappy so he should get released. The 17 year old down the road doing far less should get locked up for life?!?! It doesn't make sense!

We are not talking about locking people up for doing less or that he should be got off.... but people who have done worse should be punished more.

A child abuser, rapist and murder could get less than Biggs... is that right?

[Strafin]

We are not talking about locking people up for doing less or that he should be got off.... but people who have done worse should be punished more.

A child abuser, rapist and murder could get less than Biggs... is that right?

No but that doesn't Biggs shouldn't have served longer either.

[Strafin]

Who thinks it's right he should be released?

Plenty of people, including Jack Straw, that's why he was.

[Biker1]

Plenty of people, including Jack Straw, that's why he was.

Do you think more people think he should be released than those who don't?

[JeffG]

This is going wildly off-topic. There is already a Ronald Briggs (sic) topic.

[Strafin]

Do you think more people think he should be released than those who don't?

I think there's a lot, but JeffG is right this is a bit off topic, see you on the other thread!

[Biker1]

I think there's a lot, but JeffG is right this is a bit off topic, see you on the other thread!

I didn't bring up Mr. Biggs on this thread.

You are right there is a Biggs thread but his release was used as an example on this one so I responded.

Thousands of criminals are released too early, Biggs is just a solitary example who has gained notoriety.

Enough of him here - he has his own personal thread!!