"Rationing Police Services" - A Shot Across The Bows

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has delivered himself of the opinion that the Police will need to start "rationing" their services if budget contraints continue.  "Cuts meant police would have to pick and choose more often what they prioritise, and, more controversially, what they will not", in the Grauniad's paraphrase.

One's responses to this range from "statement of the bleed'n obvious", through to "could be pretty sinister".

• All resources are finite and anyone who imagines there isn't some kind of prioritisation going on, in respect of any service provision, is deliberately kidding themselves.  The NHS gets fairly close to undiscriminating non-prioritisation in the way GPs and A&E are fairly much forced to deal with whatever fetches up in their system.  But after forced entry through the unguarded gate, the patient rapidly gets triaged and filtered and rationed, even if only in ways that are never articulated
• As BH-H notes, the military and more recently the NHS have forced a bit of recognition of this into the public debate: and maybe the Police should be making matters more explicit in their own manor.  More openness in strategic decision-making has advantages over unaccountable private policy-making, which we all know is what happens
• I could draw his attention to the situation at a cafe of my acquaintance which, every weekday morning, is home to three and sometimes four patrol-cars' worth of coppers enjoying an exceptionally leisurely morning coffee-break ...

But:

• How much openness is wise?  It's one thing for the military to state: we can no longer patrol in the Pacific Ocean; or for the NHS to say we can't afford this new cancer drug.  But what happens when the Police say: we can't patrol after midnight?   (Our local force has already unilaterally declared it will not enforce the new 20 mph speed limits the council has imposed.)
• What happens when 'rationing' get really political?  When (say) a mayor with strong community affiliations tells the local police chief that laws he reckons aren't congenial to his community mustn't be enforced? 

What do we think?

ND

Police think crime is your fault

The Met Police commissioner, a man whose stock is falling like a mining share on the FTSE, has mused that Banks should stop paying out people who are victims for fraud.


Apparently, it only encourages them to be reckless.


His reasoning is along the same lines that if you leave your car unlocked or a window on your house open, then you will be uninsured. But then again, is a girl fair game because she wears a short dress....this is a silly path to take the 'asking for it' legal defence.


The Banks themselves are not going to wear this either. Firstly, if they all act in concert then that is anti-competitive. Secondly, they are the ones pushing online and digital.


The world of online banking has long been insecure. The Banks have always paid no questions asked because if they don't then customers will insist on branches, chequebooks, cash etc; all very costly and the Banks are trying to dump this aspect of banking.


Paying out a few hundred million in fraud cases is pittance compared to sacking 50,000 people and closing hundreds of branches. Perhaps the Banks could do more to install anti-vires software etc at their cost and as an added benefit of current account banking; rather than useless insurance deals etc that they currently offer.


And of course, their world is ruined if the trust goes and then there is the cost of real security. Nobody loves 3-level security, indeed personally I find it easier to find a cash machine than try to log on to my supposedly accessible internet banking.


So the Met Police commissioner will take a bucket full on this and quite right as his real attempt is to get others to pay to do the Police job. After all, his union members want to sit in cars and patrol the streets, they are hardly equipped to go toe-to-toe with Anonymous style hackers; good luck with the re-training of the Force!