You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ret. on 27 Mar 2010 08:31 Kim Bolton wrote: > Ret. wrote: > >> >> The problems today is that although police numbers have increased - >> they have nowhere near kept pace with the massive increase in demand. > > In 1915 the town I live in had 52 constables and specials. > > Now the town is 10 times the size it was then, and it has one > constable and four plastic policemen available during office hours. > The only time they appear in public is to pop along to the bakers and > get their lunches, although I did once see an officer on a police > mountain bike patrolling this estate. He cleared off before the > schoolkids started throwing stones at the busses. > > I'm not sure where your 'massive demand' comes from. If you could sit in a police despatching centre for an hour or two you would understand. Kev
From: Mike Scott on 27 Mar 2010 09:04 Ret. wrote: ..... >>>> Out of curiosity, I'd say the chance that your house would burn down >>>> is singularly low. So may I assume you don't trouble with fire >>>> insurance? >>> >>> I don't think that the chances are as low as a 747 crash. There are >>> any number of occurences that could result in a house fire and so I >>> certainly do have house insurance. >>> >>> Kev >> >> You do appear somewhat inconsistent then. Oh well. > > It all depends how you look at it. Do I actually worry about a house > fire? No I don't. My house and wiring is in good condition, I recently > had my old fuse box replaced with a modern consumer unit. I'm careful > about turning things off at night, etc. so I think the chances of my > house setting on fire is remote. > > *If* it did happen, however, and I did not have insurance, then it would > be a personal financial disaster for us, and so it clearly makes sense > to have cover just in the remote off-chance that it *may* happen! > > Kev Which sort of proves the point trying to be made elsewhere within the thread. One /does/ need to be concerned about 'unlikely' events. You are obviously concerned about a house fire (rightly IMO) yet you seem to deride those who concern themselves about other unlikely events (wrongful database access). As you say, it "all depends how you look at it". If your risk assessment suggests no big deal, then fine; if others' suggests the same problem needs addressing, also fine. But bear in mind that others' knowledge of the deeper issues involved may exceed your (or my) own, and their assessment may therefore be the better. -- Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk) Harlow Essex England
From: Graham Murray on 27 Mar 2010 09:46 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> writes: > Perhaps this alleged increase in demand is in direct inverse > proportion to the number of coppers on the street. > > In 1915 loads of coppers to patrol and keep an eye on things, few crimes. > In 2010 few coppers all sitting in the nick doing paperwork, loads of crime. As a matter of interest, how has the ratio of number of police officers to the total population (of the area they police) changed over the years?
From: AlanG on 27 Mar 2010 09:54 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:48:04 +0000, Kim Bolton <nospam(a)all.invalid> wrote: > >Ret. wrote: > >> >>The problems today is that although police numbers have increased - they >>have nowhere near kept pace with the massive increase in demand. > >In 1915 the town I live in had 52 constables and specials. > >Now the town is 10 times the size it was then, and it has one >constable and four plastic policemen available during office hours. >The only time they appear in public is to pop along to the bakers and >get their lunches, although I did once see an officer on a police >mountain bike patrolling this estate. He cleared off before the >schoolkids started throwing stones at the busses. > >I'm not sure where your 'massive demand' comes from. In 1900 the police strength in the UK was approximately 40000 officers for a population of approximately 37 million. In 2009 we have over 135000 police plus over 250000 ancillary staff for a population of approximately 61 million. Perhaps the demand comes from the massive increase in criminal offences we didn't have to contend with in the first half of the last century
From: Kim Bolton on 27 Mar 2010 10:55
Ret. wrote: >Kim Bolton wrote: >> Ret. wrote: >> >>> >>> The problems today is that although police numbers have increased - >>> they have nowhere near kept pace with the massive increase in demand. >> >> In 1915 the town I live in had 52 constables and specials. >> >> Now the town is 10 times the size it was then, and it has one >> constable and four plastic policemen available during office hours. >> The only time they appear in public is to pop along to the bakers and >> get their lunches, although I did once see an officer on a police >> mountain bike patrolling this estate. He cleared off before the >> schoolkids started throwing stones at the busses. >> >> I'm not sure where your 'massive demand' comes from. > >If you could sit in a police despatching centre for an hour or two you would >understand. > >Kev My local station doesn't have a despatching centre. -- from Kim Bolton |