You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Kim Bolton on 27 Mar 2010 11:08 Graham Murray wrote: >"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? A guess at the 1915 population would be 2000; today it's 20000. So the proportion has changed from 1 copper per 40 inhabitants in 1915 to 1 copper per 4000 during the day and 0 coppers per 20000 at night. Those 0 coppers must be run off their feet. -- from Kim Bolton
From: Ret. on 27 Mar 2010 11:36 Kim Bolton wrote: > 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. Very few local stations do. In fact, in many areas, even Divisional centres are closing down now and being replaced by a single large force despatching centre. Kev Kev
From: Ret. on 27 Mar 2010 11:37 AlanG wrote: > 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. Or the massive increase in anti-social behaviour that we didn't have to contend with in the first half of the century when children were well disciplined, well brought up, and tucked up in bed by 7pm. Kev
From: Ret. on 27 Mar 2010 12:05 Mike Scott wrote: > 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. I'm more than happy to concede that there is a danger that any database will be abused - and that there are likely to be a few incidents with the ANPR database that will prove to be controversial. What I don't believe is that these will be commonplace - and I believe that the massive advantages outweigh the risks. Kev
From: Steve Firth on 27 Mar 2010 12:26
Mr. Benn <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > I've been stopped in entirely the same circumstances and had exactly the > > same attitude from the police. In my case the speed limit was 40 and > > there was a speed camera part way along the dual carriageway. I didn't > > trigger the speed camera but I was still accused of speeding, but the > > officers had no evidence to support their allegation. They also required > > a breath test and then when they asked for ID were shocked when I showed > > them <something> that identified who I was and who I worked for rather > > than my driving licence. Then their attitude turned polite to the point > > of being fawning. > > Are you someone really important? Not at all. |