More government stupidity.

Please explain how the sex of the chief constable inluences police policy and operations.

Around where?

May next year 100. By 2010, < 50 .....

You've been cross-posting to cam.misc, a newsgroup for Cambridge.

-- Mark

Have you ever tried to influence a Police Authority (formerly a Watch Committee)?

I'm afraid that, although they hold supposed public 'consultations' and meetings, the only people they have any regard to is the police trade union called ACPO. It seems that ACPO is THE body that decides police priorities, with very little local discretion...

I was posting to uk.d-i-y.

cam.misc was probably on the cc. list.

He will then usually use either a stolen car, or a totally street legal one.

Silly to drive around with 20 grand of coke in the back of a car with an out of date tax disc.

cam.misc.

lets not go there please ;-)

Had enough Nanny state for one day..

Yep, but going by experience I have to say not unusual, never mind unknown. There's probably a butter side down ieffect as well, in that plod probably catches more of such muppets than the dealers who don't do this.

Mmm.... I have enough of nanny state pretty much every day.

I wouldn't worry, I don't think that he'll be able to manage to answer the question in any meaningful way in any case.

In message , Tim Lamb writes

Yes, but only in theory. The only option for tractors is 12 months :-)

I rather suspect you are correct :-(

No less than uk.d-i-y. In the articles you post you have the header line:

Newsgroups: cam.misc,uk.d-i-y

Look at what you've posted and you'll see it!

-- Mark

Police priorities are decided *much* more locally than that. Attendees at the North Area Committee, for example, will have observed the police leaving the meeting with priorities that weren't the ones they were expected when they arrived at the meeting.

Umm. I'm not at all sure that I, or anyone else, has told them they need to spend half their time or more filling in paperwork rather than rounding up the local villainry, or whatever the current figure is..

The problem is that every politician you have ever met or voted for will no doubt tell you that excessive bureacracy is A Bad Thing, but once they actually get into power they seem totally unable or unwilling to do much about it - except enact new laws that add to the existing mountain. Voting more money doesn't help; all that extra dosh needs administration, doesn't it, to make sure that it's spent properly?

It's not money that's the problem, it's the fact that cops are being paid to fill in forms rather than catching crooks.

AFAICT the 'penalties' involve stuffing their mouths with more cash.

Having spent time hanging around with police - go out on the streets, nick someone, spend the rest of the shift on the paperwork - it's impossible to disagree with that.

In message , at

What happens is that when in power governments enact ever more stringent measures, which they hedge around with ever more "safeguards", which are essentially and enhanced paper trail which is supposed to guard against abuse. Whether it's effective is another debate, but this is where the extra form filling comes from.

Exactly. The rel thing is the government - especially todays government

- is run by people who do not, and never have had to, make a profit out of managing a complex large system..

The fact that they spend a million to save a thousand every time, never features in their thinking.