Complaints against officers

[Techie1 + 2,024]

NPCC lead for the issue believes the Home Office is listening to police on funding.

AC Mark Rowley speaking at the Home Affairs Committee

The Home Office is engaged in constructive dialogue over the huge budget pressure created by the terror attacks this year, the national lead for counter-terrorism believes.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley told the Home Affairs Select Committee that the increased terror threat has created around 30 per cent more work for counter-terror officers.

At the same time, the overall counter-terrorism budget is due to be cut by 7.2 per cent in cash terms over the next three years, following its previous uplift.

A one-off grant of £24 million has been given by the Home Office to deal with the aftermath of the series of attacks this year, but it does not cover all associated costs.

AC Rowley said: "We now have a double challenge [with] the resources across the country: we have to look back and investigate those attacks and support all the victims and those cases through to trials or inquests […] but at the same time, I have a bigger threat to try and mitigate with my work with the security service.

"That challenge has stretched us enormously. We're over spending considerably this year, [we have] constructive engagement with the Home Office on that, and that £24 million will cover part of the overspend. We're still discussing with the Home Office about how we cover the rest of it this year."

He added: "Looking forward […] what I'm seeing at the moment is about 30 per cent more work for us in the system for counter-terrorism.

"We're going to need real terms extra resources to counter that as well as our creativity, not a 7.2 per cent reduction. The Home Office understand that and we're working together having good conversations with them […]

"I want to be able to get to a position where we're as well matched at dealing with a threat next year as we were last year."

Earlier Staffordshire Police Chief Constable Gareth Morgan told the same committee it is important that funding neighbourhood policing is intrinsically helpful for tackling counter-terrorism and organised crime.

He said: "We need to remember that policing is a system: colleagues in the NCA and counter-terrorism need our neighbourhood policing officers as much as we do."

AC Rowley pointed out that 80 per cent of the resources used to respond to the Manchester attack did not from specialist counter-terror teams.

Last week, Home Secretary Amber Rudd said that the government was determined to provide funding for CT issues but did not commit to increasing funding for other areas.

View on Police Oracle

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

Did I just read CT and community policing mentioned the same story. CT doesn't affect 99.9% of the public that they see and understand. 99.9% of the public are affected by community policing. Well perhaps 99.9% is an over exaggeration but I hope you know what I mean. CT is a black hole we seem happy to pour resources in to when in reality the numbers of people killed or injured pales into relative insignificance when compared to road deaths, or murders through domestic or gang violence. I know this is very important, but is a life destroyed by terrorism worth more than those I have highlighted. Is it more that terrorism is viewed so importantly because it is political. I don't know?

 

 

[Radman + 2,163]

CT is linked heavily with community policing... Well every major crime is, this is something we have been missing in the UK for years now. We have happily poured money and resources into other areas of bobbying but stripped back the very core of what policing is and should be.

Community policing is key to crime prevention thanks to intelligence gathering and engagement.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Radman

[Growley + 2,436]

9 hours ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

Did I just read CT and community policing mentioned the same story. CT doesn't affect 99.9% of the public that they see and understand. 99.9% of the public are affected by community policing. Well perhaps 99.9% is an over exaggeration but I hope you know what I mean. CT is a black hole we seem happy to pour resources in to when in reality the numbers of people killed or injured pales into relative insignificance when compared to road deaths, or murders through domestic or gang violence. I know this is very important, but is a life destroyed by terrorism worth more than those I have highlighted. Is it more that terrorism is viewed so importantly because it is political. I don't know?

That's a very utilitarian way of looking at it.

Terrorism sees more of the 'spotlight' because un-tackled it arguably has a much greater impact on our way of life. The majority of people aren't affected by gang or domestic violence (to the extreme of death anyway), but everyone living in a city feels it when a 'successful' terrorist attack slips through the net.

That's not to say it's right or wrong, just how it appears to be. 

 

[Mac7 808]

I am amazed that people think terrorism and neighbourhood policing don't go together. Terrorism is embedded with communities. After all where do you think they live, work, study, meet etc.

 

Focusing on international terrorism, it's not just loss of live it's the radicalisation of others, fund raising etc. Not everyone with an extremist mindset steps over the line and kills people. For every terrorist who commits an atrocity there a support network behind them.

 

If you still don't believe that terrorism and community policing don't go together, read books such as "The Islamist" by Ed Hussain or "Radical" by Majid Nawaz.

 

 

[Growley + 2,436]

6 minutes ago, Mac7 said:

I am amazed that people terrorism and neighbourhood policing don't go together. Terrorism is embedded with communities. After all where do you think they live, work etc.

I don't think anyone is saying Neighbourhood Policing and CT Policing aren't intrinsically linked, the matter has literally been brought up pretty much every time the subject of funding is discussed.

[NCFPA 79]

You only have to look at NYPD’s new operating model - came in 2015 and puts dedicated officers in ‘sectors’ to drive down crime, gain intelligence, relations, intel and so on. Funnily enough crime is at an all time low and New York has not suffered any terror related incident since.

[Mac7 808]

Apart from the New York bombings in 2016.

 

 

It may have something to do with the fact that the NYPD have about 40000 officers and 10 times the budget of the met.

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

Apart from the New York bombings in 2016.
 
 
It may have something to do with the fact that the NYPD have about 40000 officers and 10 times the budget of the met.

The NYPD budget is $4.8billion with 49,000 officers (all trained in firearms) and the Met is £3.2billion with 32,000 warranted officers. Both cover a population of around 8.5 million.

So on the scheme of things the NYPD appears vastly more efficient. Particularly as they have 1 car for every 4 officers and about 4 times the number of police dogs.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

The thing with New York of course is there are probably 10 million guns in the city given there are more guns than people in the US.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

And the US has more than enough cranks who perform multi homicides and shootings. To get any real publicity any terrorists have to think big. If a terrorist went on a multiple knife attack he would probably be shot in seconds, not by police but your Joe on the street.

[Mac7 808]

I've been to Manhatten a couple of times. The NYPD are VERY visible. Plus they have other forces such as the port authority police. And it's not just around prominent crowded locations.

 

Contrast that with London, which I go to a couple of times a month and you don't see a cop (ignoring parliament and co). No disrespect to the met, it's the same in most towns and cities.

 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

It is all about money. Unfortunately it is only the Police Officers themselves who acknowledge that you cannot get more with less. Our leaders have spent the last 20 years removing Police Officers from sight.

[Radman + 2,163]

2 hours ago, Mac7 said:

I've been to Manhatten a couple of times. The NYPD are VERY visible. Plus they have other forces such as the port authority police. And it's not just around prominent crowded locations.

 

Contrast that with London, which I go to a couple of times a month and you don't see a cop (ignoring parliament and co). No disrespect to the met, it's the same in most towns and cities.

 

You don't see cops outside of the transport links/tourist hot spots.

My local city doesn't have officers conducting patrols, I cant remember the last time I saw one.

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

The thing with New York of course is there are probably 10 million guns in the city given there are more guns than people in the US.

To be fair with New York you do need a permit for firearms and there is a ban on what could be classed at 'assault weapons'. You can apply for premise or concealed carry licenses and it is for individually registered guns and has a waiting period of about 4-6 months, with a doctors report and references. To get a concealed carry permit you need to prove a legitimate purpose.

An out of state visitor can't be issued with a permit and so cannot bring firearms with them unless they are travelling through the state - but they must be kept in a locked safe inaccessible to the driver and they are not allowed to make stops.

Obviously firearms are accessible, particularly illegal firearms from out of state, but you'd face charges for being caught with one.

It's worth noting that Auxiliary Police in the NYPD aren't permitted to carry a firearm but must patrol in pairs or with a full time officer.