Police to fine cyclists caught riding in pedestrian zone in Windsor

flobble wrote:

Police per head of population  hasn't changed as much as the rhetoric would have you believe

Year  Police UK Pop'n Ratio
1971: 95,759:  55,928,000 1:584
1981 :118,081:  56,357,500 1:477
1991: 125,294:  57,438,700 1:458
2017: 133,004:  66,029,900 1:496

I've included CSOs in the last figure, but not the white collar staff.

I thought of making the same argument, but when I did the maths it seemed the OP's point still remained valid (population increase since 1971 18%, police numbers increase over same time 28%).

Wonder what the result would be if you examined change in population among the more crime-prone age groups? Are there not a lot more older people around now, too worn-out to cause trouble (other than by voting Brexit)? That would strengthen the OP's argument.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

flobble wrote:

Police per head of population  hasn't changed as much as the rhetoric would have you believe

Year  Police UK Pop'n Ratio
1971: 95,759:  55,928,000 1:584
1981 :118,081:  56,357,500 1:477
1991: 125,294:  57,438,700 1:458
2017: 133,004:  66,029,900 1:496

I've included CSOs in the last figure, but not the white collar staff.

I thought of making the same argument, but when I did the maths it seemed the OP's point still remained valid (population increase since 1971 18%, police numbers increase over same time 28%). Wonder what the result would be if you examined change in population among the more crime-prone age groups? Are there not a lot more older people around now, too worn-out to cause trouble (other than by voting Brexit)? That would strengthen the OP's argument.

All valid points, but trying to be fair, I suspect a bigger issue is the change in day to day policing, and how much an individual copper can actually get done due to "paperwork". 

The world is obviously very different to 1971, and things like safeguarding for vulnerable people is a huge issue these days (as it should be). From friends in the police, I understand that the change to care in the community and the continued under-funding of mental health services ever since has resulted in a huge drain on Police time. 

The Police themselves saying they haven't got time to deal with low level offending. When smoking was banned in cars if children were in them, the Police came right out and said we ain't got time for that. 9 months after the ban came in, no-one had been fined (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36653291). I've seen similar stories about burglary - wasn't there some story about 1 force only investigating burglaries on odd numbered houses? We all know that mobile phone use whilst driving is not being dealt with in any meaningful way. 

Now, whether the Police are really overstretched, or just can't be bothered to deal with some types of offending? I'm not so sure...

gw42 wrote:

I've seen similar stories about burglary - wasn't there some story about 1 force only investigating burglaries on odd numbered houses?

That story was misreported. In reality it was an attempt at a controlled experiment, to see whether sending CSI-type-people to examine the aftermath of burglaries made any difference to the outcome. Picking odd-numbered houses was apparently an attempt at creating a randomised trial.
I gather it showed no difference in outcomes, but wasn't sufficiently robust an experiment to be a reliable result.

(credit - R4's "More Or Less" - which also debunked the widely-reported '50% of cops obese' story - turns out that was really '50% of the small number of cops who came forward to ask for help with their weight problem'...More Or Less does a good job at debunking bad stats in the media, by the way).

I bet there were any number of crimes that the police didn't bother investigating back in the early '70s (apparently including celebs and politicians sexual misbehaviour), so how can one compare anyway?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

flobble wrote:

Police per head of population  hasn't changed as much as the rhetoric would have you believe

Year  Police UK Pop'n Ratio
1971: 95,759:  55,928,000 1:584
1981 :118,081:  56,357,500 1:477
1991: 125,294:  57,438,700 1:458
2017: 133,004:  66,029,900 1:496

I've included CSOs in the last figure, but not the white collar staff.

I thought of making the same argument, but when I did the maths it seemed the OP's point still remained valid (population increase since 1971 18%, police numbers increase over same time 28%).

Well yes but where are they all then? as I dont want to go all 'back in my day', for one I'm not that old ,but I don't see the police on the streets anymore at all, doing that day to day crime prevention type thing, that's not just a misremembered hazy childhood memory that they did once, and the consequence feels like a rise in lots of crimes the massaged stats hide.

Awavey wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

flobble wrote:

Police per head of population  hasn't changed as much as the rhetoric would have you believe

Year  Police UK Pop'n Ratio
1971: 95,759:  55,928,000 1:584
1981 :118,081:  56,357,500 1:477
1991: 125,294:  57,438,700 1:458
2017: 133,004:  66,029,900 1:496

I've included CSOs in the last figure, but not the white collar staff.

I thought of making the same argument, but when I did the maths it seemed the OP's point still remained valid (population increase since 1971 18%, police numbers increase over same time 28%).

Well yes but where are they all then? as I dont want to go all 'back in my day', for one I'm not that old ,but I don't see the police on the streets anymore at all, doing that day to day crime prevention type thing, that's not just a misremembered hazy childhood memory that they did once, and the consequence feels like a rise in lots of crimes the massaged stats hide.

Yeah, I don't know, I give up on trying to work out the truth on such things. I do wonder where all the traffic wardens have disappeared to though.

On private land it seems like the hapless motorist is for once the victim, with dodgy enforcers pulling all kinds of tricks to fine them for profit, while on public roads there seems no enforcement at all.

Awavey wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

flobble wrote:

Police per head of population  hasn't changed as much as the rhetoric would have you believe

Year  Police UK Pop'n Ratio
1971: 95,759:  55,928,000 1:584
1981 :118,081:  56,357,500 1:477
1991: 125,294:  57,438,700 1:458
2017: 133,004:  66,029,900 1:496

I've included CSOs in the last figure, but not the white collar staff.

I thought of making the same argument, but when I did the maths it seemed the OP's point still remained valid (population increase since 1971 18%, police numbers increase over same time 28%).

Well yes but where are they all then? as I dont want to go all 'back in my day', for one I'm not that old ,but I don't see the police on the streets anymore at all, doing that day to day crime prevention type thing, that's not just a misremembered hazy childhood memory that they did once, and the consequence feels like a rise in lots of crimes the massaged stats hide.

The Police allocate funds and activities disproportionately, e.g. plebgate. Nobody died and there was no risk to the public, yet it was a priority due to Police and MPs reputations.

Grahamd wrote:

Awavey wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

flobble wrote:

Police per head of population  hasn't changed as much as the rhetoric would have you believe

Year  Police UK Pop'n Ratio
1971: 95,759:  55,928,000 1:584
1981 :118,081:  56,357,500 1:477
1991: 125,294:  57,438,700 1:458
2017: 133,004:  66,029,900 1:496

I've included CSOs in the last figure, but not the white collar staff.

I thought of making the same argument, but when I did the maths it seemed the OP's point still remained valid (population increase since 1971 18%, police numbers increase over same time 28%).

Well yes but where are they all then? as I dont want to go all 'back in my day', for one I'm not that old ,but I don't see the police on the streets anymore at all, doing that day to day crime prevention type thing, that's not just a misremembered hazy childhood memory that they did once, and the consequence feels like a rise in lots of crimes the massaged stats hide.

The Police allocate funds and activities disproportionately, e.g. plebgate. Nobody died and there was no risk to the public, yet it was a priority due to Police and MPs reputations.

This is my concern: they're setting the agenda instead of policing laws, and it pisses me off that that agenda all-too-often seems (to my biased mind) to involve misunderstanding road users' obligations.

Given the simplified choice between the police on one hand ('we don't have enough employees because of cuts from central government') and government ('we have enough police and it's up to individual forces how to deploy them'), I know which side I take.

Some departments, like policing, transport, education, health... are too important to be kicked about the way they are at the whim of parties, and should be managed by cross-party groups. I can't see the advantages to fragmenting the forces and having regional commissioners, either. It's just come from political parties in power passing the buck.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Jail for a broken arm but use your van to kil achild on the foitway and get off scot-free. The sickening disparity is just so agenda driven it's criminal.
Not saying someone shouldn't be punished for breaking an arm of achild through a careless action but plid wouldn't blink an eyelid if this was a motorist!

This x1000

Valbrona wrote:

Why is it the donkey police in this country only bother to enforce the law after someone has had to suffer a serious injury? And once this story has faded away we can expect the police to revert to the earlier arrangement of not bothering to enforce laws regarding the illegal riding of bikes in pedestrian areas.

Its quite simple really. There simply aren't enough police and havent been for years. In the 90s when I learnt to drive it was normal for most people to be pulled over for broken tail lights etc because there were more police with more time to deal with the little things. E.g. the "7day wonder" was a common thing (common enough to get a nick name).

We even had a police station in the town I was living in - now I think the nearest is 15 miles away.

But successive governments think a reduction in crime stats means we can make do with less bobbies (and not that more bobbies lead to prevention)

balmybaldwin wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Why is it the donkey police in this country only bother to enforce the law after someone has had to suffer a serious injury? And once this story has faded away we can expect the police to revert to the earlier arrangement of not bothering to enforce laws regarding the illegal riding of bikes in pedestrian areas.

 

Its quite simple really. There simply aren't enough police and havent been for years. In the 90s when I learnt to drive it was normal for most people to be pulled over for broken tail lights etc because there were more police with more time to deal with the little things. E.g. the "7day wonder" was a common thing (common enough to get a nick name).

We even had a police station in the town I was living in - now I think the nearest is 15 miles away.

 

But successive governments think a reduction in crime stats means we can make do with less bobbies (and not that more bobbies lead to prevention)

How many police do you want, a million, 2 million? Have you any clue, do you know how many there are, do you know that we've had years on end of increases in police numbers because ug we need more police - that's a stupid mantra that involves no thinking.

kie7077 wrote:

balmybaldwin wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Why is it the donkey police in this country only bother to enforce the law after someone has had to suffer a serious injury? And once this story has faded away we can expect the police to revert to the earlier arrangement of not bothering to enforce laws regarding the illegal riding of bikes in pedestrian areas.

 

Its quite simple really. There simply aren't enough police and havent been for years. In the 90s when I learnt to drive it was normal for most people to be pulled over for broken tail lights etc because there were more police with more time to deal with the little things. E.g. the "7day wonder" was a common thing (common enough to get a nick name).

We even had a police station in the town I was living in - now I think the nearest is 15 miles away.

 

But successive governments think a reduction in crime stats means we can make do with less bobbies (and not that more bobbies lead to prevention)

How many police do you want, a million, 2 million? Have you any clue, do you know how many there are, do you know that we've had years on end of increases in police numbers because ug we need more police - that's a stupid mantra that involves no thinking.

Let's look at the facts:

Police numbers in UK:

1971:  95,759

1981: 118,081

1991: 125,294

2017: 123,142 plus 9,862 "Community Support" Officers and 58,831 white colar back up staff

Met police budget? Flat. Don't belive me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40354815

Don't make excuses for poor policing