The Slippery Slope......

[milleplod]

....steepens!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34697149

We have Special Constables, and have had them for a very long time - sworn officers with exactly the same powers as regular constables. This, though, shows just how far down the line we've gone. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Pete

[dave1]

Can't be any worse than the army of PCSOs surely! A PCSO might be seen once or twice a week in our village but only ever at times such as mid morning when it is nice and peacefull. Ours swan around in liveried cars thinking how important they look whilst realistically doing nothing....they don't even bother attending parish council meetings.

[milleplod]

PCSOs are paid though, Dave! They might not do much, but they're paid and so are obliged (to an extent!) to turn up for duty. Once a force starts relying on volunteers to make up numbers, there's the potential for serious problems - what can you do to compel a volunteer to turn up?!

PCSOs and HATOs cost a vast amount of money to set up. Neither organisations have powers worth having, from a policing point of view. What do HATOs do exactly?.....whatever you might hear serving HATOs say in respect of their responsibilities, the money spent on them is wasted. Their 'job' was done by warranted police officers ('road traffic'), who could also do other very useful stuff when not doing roads-related work. HATOs can do zilch when not engaged in minor traffic related matters.

I do think a lot of the whingeing from senior police officers and the Federation regarding cutbacks is exaggerated, but politicians have an awful lot more to answer for than just tightening the purse strings.

Pete

[mikeyv]

HATOs, do the same as a lot of people, search out anything they can use to justify their existence and their salary.

Hence the over dramatic response to what used to be considered trivial events, closed off lanes to protect vehicles on the hard shoulder for example.

As you say, a waste of money.

[dave1]

But the police DO rely on volunteers Pete and have done for many many years.

[milleplod]

Specials are volunteers, granted. But, as sworn officers who hold a warrant, they have exactly the same powers and priviliges as regular officers, they're very useful.

The point I'm making is that its a sad day when politicians (May in particular) plan to have volunteer investigators, CCTV operators and other backroom staff keeping Forces running. They'll be able to turn up as and when they like. That's a great political commitment to policing - but, hey, crime is falling, so we shouldn't grumble (or....crime figures are falling....which is very different).

Pete

[dave1]

I agree with you regarding the above, since the only thing reducing about crime is the recording by forces due to the changes in criteria for what reported crime actually has to be recorded. I would, however, rather have volunteers trained in specific tasks to having nothing.

If there were more visible police both local beat bobbies and traffic officers then I think that the cost to the public purse would be very little extra since it would probably result in less crime so reducing the various costs involved with the investigation of crime and subsequent costs incurred in prosecuting criminals and also the costs involved in incarcerating them.

[dave1]

Another point is that when the Highways Agency was started in 2003 (Blunkett was Home Secretary at that time) the idea was flawed and just put nearly 2000 people doing nothing for most of the time except driving liveried vehicles. The money spent on this could be spent on police officers with far more powers and responsibilities than these HATOs.

[mikeyv]

I saw my first volunteer speed camera operator a month or so back, I wonder how long before one of them gets a good hammering, or worse.

Seems so obviously a bad idea to me.