Met police firearms

[Fedster + 1,307]

'Foolhardy' comments face backlash from union.

Norfolk PCC Lorne Green sharing his Police and Crime Plan with Theresa May.

 

A PCC has issued an apology for saying he would not hire PCSOs even if he had the budget to do so. 

Norfolk’s Police and Crime Commissioner Lorne Green made the comment while answering a question on budget cuts.

Mr Green had joined his Chief Constable Simon Bailey at a police accountability forum meeting – the first since the force announced its controversial Norfolk 2020 plan.

Last month it revealed 150 PCSOs will be replaced with 81 new police officers and 16 non-officer roles, as part of the 2020 reformation, which will save £2million a year.

Conservative PCC Mr Green, in response to a question about whether police leaders would consider keeping PCSOs if they agreed to take pay cuts, told the meeting: “If I had all the money in the world I would not hire more PCSOs.

“We need more officers who can investigate, who can be moved around the county, who can be called on at short notice to duty when duty demands.

“And PCSOs, as valuable as they’ve been, they don’t offer the flexibility and skills necessary to deal with 21st century crime in this county.”

However, the following day he issued an apology for his "poor choice of words" amid upset from the union representing PSCOs, which labelled his comments "insulting and foolhardy".

Mr Green, said: “I am sorry for my choice of words with regards to the proposal in relation to PCSOs - I did not choose them well.

“I apologise for any unintended hurt I may have caused. I have, throughout, been mindful of the pain and uncertainty caused by the proposal to put the PCSO role at risk.

“It has been important to me from the outset that the Force addresses and deals with the inevitable impact on these valued members of the Norfolk Constabulary community with great sensitivity.

“As such, I made a point at the public meeting of calling on the Chief Constable to outline the measures being taken to assist those at risk.

“I was heartened to hear that more than 40 PCSOs have expressed an interest in becoming Police Constables and that there may be further opportunities within the proposed future policing model. I will continue to closely monitor the progress of these efforts.”

Chris Jenkinson, regional secretary of UNISON Eastern said the PCC had no option but to apologise for his "insulting" comment.

He said: “[The comments were] Disappointing because PCSOs have been working diligently for years on neighbourhood policing and have a very successful partnership with the communities they work in and the warranted officers they work alongside.

“Surprising because the Norfolk and Suffolk police forces are collaborating very closely and the Suffolk force has recently reconfirmed its intention to keep its PCSO workforce. 

“Foolhardy since research by Cambridge University Institute of Criminology shows that PCSOs are extremely good value for money within neighbourhood policing.”

View on Police Oracle

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

Good for him. As far as I can see the only mistake he made was to say   “I apologise for any unintended hurt I may have caused. I have, throughout, been mindful of the pain and uncertainty caused by the proposal to put the PCSO role at risk." 

At least he will have replaced them with officers who will actually have some power.  Neighbourhood Policing was devised to be superimposed on top of normal patrol Policing. Anything other was doomed to failure.  

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

Good for him. As far as I can see the only mistake he made was to say   “I apologise for any unintended hurt I may have caused. I have, throughout, been mindful of the pain and uncertainty caused by the proposal to put the PCSO role at risk." 
At least he will have replaced them with officers who will actually have some power.  Neighbourhood Policing was devised to be superimposed on top of normal patrol Policing. Anything other was doomed to failure.  

What should he have said?
'I don't care about hurting people who have worked hard for the police over the years and tough sh1t that some will lose their jobs.'?

[Hyphen + 693]

Let’s be honest here and not get all worked up and try and point score as most of politics is now.

He made a comment which yes on its own might upset some people however he has qualified this comment with some facts and in context is an understandable position.

I’m sure many people now would not opt to have a large recruitment of PCSO’s now even if there was a large increase in funds.

That is not an attack on the individuals by the way but more about the role itself.

[Radman + 2,163]

6 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

What should he have said?
'I don't care about hurting people who have worked hard for the police over the years and tough sh1t that some will lose their jobs.'?

Discrediting the role isn't an attack on individual officers.

We've had this discussion before but it is very obvious to not only me but the vast majority of serving officers and public that the way PCSO's are used and deployed across the nation hasn't been great value for money... Regular posters on here know my opinion on this issue and I served as a PCSO but even I can objectively look at the role and see how largely 'weak' it is, offering little value for money.

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

8 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

What should he have said?
'I don't care about hurting people who have worked hard for the police over the years and tough sh1t that some will lose their jobs.'?

Diplomatic, as ever. Please do enlighten us on what you think he should have said. As others have said it is not about the individual but the role and powers of a PCSO. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Zulu 22

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

Diplomatic, as ever. Please do enlighten us on what you think he should have said. As others have said it is not about the individual but the role and powers of a PCSO. 

I think he said the right thing. Agree with the role or not getting rid of it puts stress on those in the role now facing losing their jobs and worrying about paying the mortgage.
It was you who said:

Good for him. As far as I can see the only mistake he made was to say   “I apologise for any unintended hurt I may have caused. I have, throughout, been mindful of the pain and uncertainty caused by the proposal to put the PCSO role at risk." 
At least he will have replaced them with officers who will actually have some power. 

[Chaos + 151]

Having been a Pcso for 4 years and now a constable for over 4, I have the experience to say that a PCSO role is certainly not flexible.

[junior_7178 62]

Lets think of the human element to this argument for a minute. 

I wonder what it must be like now for a PCSO going to work every day and doing your hardest to help your community. Whilst in the background there is this growing noise about the role being a waste of money now, some jobs being scrapped altogether now and fears that other forces might be watching to see how this goes.

I feel for those who are doing their best with the powers they have whilst deep down probably fearing for their futures. 

[Pete 1,492]

44 minutes ago, junior_7178 said:

Lets think of the human element to this argument for a minute. 

I wonder what it must be like now for a PCSO going to work every day and doing your hardest to help your community. Whilst in the background there is this growing noise about the role being a waste of money now, some jobs being scrapped altogether now and fears that other forces might be watching to see how this goes.

I feel for those who are doing their best with the powers they have whilst deep down probably fearing for their futures. 

They can apply to be PCs. 

Having spoken to numerous PCSOs about it, i’ve never heard a decent reason they can’t. it’s always “I already get paid the same to have an easy life/better shifts/not work nights”. Well, tough, the gravy trains ending, you’re going to have to pitch in and do some work.

Linked article says it’s got to the point now where a fully fledged PC only costs £1800 a year more than one of these PCSOs. Ridiculous.

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

3 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

I think he said the right thing. Agree with the role or not getting rid of it puts stress on those in the role now facing losing their jobs and worrying about paying the mortgage.
It was you who said:
 

Yes I did say, "Good for him. As far as I can see the only mistake he made was to say   “I apologise for any unintended hurt I may have caused. I have, throughout, been mindful of the pain and uncertainty caused by the proposal to put the PCSO role at risk." 
At least he will have replaced them with officers who will actually have some power."

By that I was saying that he had no need to apologise for his decision.

I agree with Pete a PCSO gets paid for very little responsibility.

[m_Cooper 8]

Lets think of the human element to this argument for a minute. 
I wonder what it must be like now for a PCSO going to work every day and doing your hardest to help your community. Whilst in the background there is this growing noise about the role being a waste of money now, some jobs being scrapped altogether now and fears that other forces might be watching to see how this goes.
I feel for those who are doing their best with the powers they have whilst deep down probably fearing for their futures. 

The same can be said of any organisation that’s had to undergo cuts.

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

Regardless of how one feels about the role of PCSO, it shows a distinct lack of tact and EI considering a large part of the workforce is looking at redundancy.

[Zulu 22 + 4,576]

You cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

No, but you can just put the egg shells in the bin - or you can throw them in harshly and spit on them for good measure.