Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

Proposals include removal of chief constable which would free up funds.

(L-R) Devon and Cornwall Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer and Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez, Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner Martyn Underhill and Chief Constable James Vaughan

Date - 1st August 2018
By - Sophie Garrod - Police Oracle

11 Comments

 

A merger of Devon and Cornwall with Dorset Police could generate enough savings to employ hundreds more frontline officers, according to senior leaders.

A consultation process on the plan is underway, with claims about its benefits being made to local politicians.

The new force, which will be run by one chief constable, overseen by one PCC, would come into existence in May 2020.

And senior officers say the merger could result in an extra 430 officers across the three counties.

This would include an immediate increase of about 100 officers due to the availability of an extra £3.2 through savings from removing one chief constable and one PCC as well as sharing ICT systems.

The rest would come from an increase in council tax.

The two forces already work together in a number of areas under a “painful and ineffective” strategic alliance, which takes in areas including dogs and firearms teams.

ACC Sharon Taylor, from Devon and Cornwall Police, said: “What is happening at the moment is ineffectual; we are having to run three organisations - the two forces and the strategic alliance.

"It is so painful and it is inefficient and ineffective. The alliance has been the right thing to do but we are having to have built-in inefficiencies as we have to maintain the legal entities of the two organisations."

ACC Taylor explained the plan is “not a done deal at all” and that the Home Office has specified it must see support from the public, stakeholders and staff in order for the proposal to receive ministerial backing.

She added: "We want to have a force which is for the next generation. We have a machete in our hands and we are going down a path that nobody has been down before.

"Although I understand the argument that a new force for Devon, Cornwall and Dorset and the Isles of Scilly would bring operational benefits I am concerned that unless there are tangible benefits that people across Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly really notice in their communities then an opportunity will have been missed.

“For that reason I won’t support a merger unless the benefits clearly and significantly outweigh the option of maintaining the status quo, and for me that means more police officers and the staff needed to maintain and train them.

“The immediate release of £3.2 million from the merger will be reinvested into 100 new people for the frontline. In addition there is a shared aspiration to increase policing capacity to a further 330 for the frontline, and I will be negotiating with the Home Office to this end.

“If I work with the chief constable to significantly increase frontline policing as part of this process, then we will really have achieved something that will sustain a viable and robust police force.”

A public consultation was launched on June 29 by police and crime commissioners of both force areas. It closes on August 27.

View On Police Oracle

[Reasonable Man + 1,230]

Didn’t I read a post recently about mergers being no longer considered because they are too expensive?

[Hyphen + 693]

I think there have been stories to that effect, it would probably take an outlay initially but would have to produce savings over time. Sadly this government aren’t interested in running a functioning service let alone investing in anything.

[Zulu 22 + 4,569]

The problem is that big is not always efficient and very counter productive. Small tends to be very much more efficient. Where are they going to save money, Comms.  No way as they will still get the same number of calls and would need the same staff to take and despatch those calls. The same would apply to administration as the amount of admin would double and you would need the same staff to do it. The same would apply through every department.

[BlueBob + 690]

36 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

The problem is that big is not always efficient and very counter productive. Small tends to be very much more efficient. Where are they going to save money, Comms.  No way as they will still get the same number of calls and would need the same staff to take and despatch those calls. The same would apply to administration as the amount of admin would double and you would need the same staff to do it. The same would apply through every department.

I think what they are saying is when they are sharing resources the actual costs are even higher as they effectively have 3 rather than 2 admin streams to fund each having to do a bit more just to cross reference each other.  So you may well find the admin burden reduces.

The subtle difference from a purely financial merger is they are openly saying they want the community's backing rather than doing it despite those views.

[Radman + 2,163]

Sometimes little kingdom mindsets, along with more concentrated, smaller resources are better than one large, geberic blob of a corporate style force covering a wide area.

One of the biggest failings I think exists with the county policing model now is that local issues aren't tackled properly or even acknowledged due to the sheer geographical area police forces have to cover. Rural and town policing where I am from is always generally the first to suffer (alongside specialised policing roles such as traffic) and now we are in a position where large areas simply aren't covered properly. Then there is the issue with county forces directly reporting to the Home Office being led by central government following whatever flavour of that particular period in crime prevention there so happens to be at white hall. PCCs were let's be honest forced in under the guise of local accountability but just how is a PCC supposed to represent large urban city centres, industrial towns and rural communities effectively under their responsibility? Each area suffering from distinct problems localised within those communities? They can't... 

If we are going down the 'regional' or even 'national' policing model which we seem to be I would want to ensure local policing issues are tackled more effectively than they are now because if we don't consider the impact it will simply lead to a far worse scenario than we are currently seeing where large urban areas receive the bulk of policing and rural towns/communities are sidelined.

For an example closer to home look at the mess Police Scotland is in since the merger... It has frankly been politicised far more than our policing model, this I wouldn't want to see in the rest of the UK.

Then again I'm one of the few serving cops seemingly in favour of a two tiered policing approach as seen within our commonwealth and the world over, a model I feel would serve local communities far better.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Radman

[Reasonable Man + 1,230]

The problem is that big is not always efficient and very counter productive. Small tends to be very much more efficient. Where are they going to save money, Comms.  No way as they will still get the same number of calls and would need the same staff to take and despatch those calls. The same would apply to administration as the amount of admin would double and you would need the same staff to do it. The same would apply through every department.

Economies of scale?
Your simple view on it means two children cost twice as much as one to the parents, when that clearly is not the case.

[Radman + 2,163]

43 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

Economies of scale?
Your simple view on it means two children cost twice as much as one to the parents, when that clearly is not the case.

Yet the public arguably get a better more localised service from a smaller, more specialised model.

It shouldn't be about money frankly - again these resources will simply be swallowed up by more crime ridden, urban areas.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Radman

[Reasonable Man + 1,230]

Yet the public arguably get a better more localised service from a smaller, more specialised model.
It shouldn't be about money frankly - again these resources will simply be swallowed up by more crime ridden, urban areas.

Local policing and centralised services can co exist.
A single Legal Services Dept or Purchasing Centre or Training Dept does not take away local operational policing any more than cutting two Chief Constables and two PCCs to one of each.

[PCSD 329]

2 hours ago, Radman said:

Yet the public arguably get a better more localised service from a smaller, more specialised model.

It shouldn't be about money frankly - again these resources will simply be swallowed up by more crime ridden, urban areas.

This. In my force we went from a BCU based response model where patrols were rarely if ever moved from their area of the force to another - to a Force Response model whereby the city (where I work) tends to suck in patrols from the outlying areas and as such the far flung areas of the force tend to have one patrol per shift if they're lucky, or somebody making 15 miles to an emergency from the city. 

[Radman + 2,163]

1 hour ago, Reasonable Man said:

Local policing and centralised services can co exist.
A single Legal Services Dept or Purchasing Centre or Training Dept does not take away local operational policing any more than cutting two Chief Constables and two PCCs to one of each.

In that regards I do agree.

But that could exist with a two tiered system aswell, something that has always perplexed me is Custody Suites, in the US generally the local Sheriffs Office are the ones that run detention/holding centres with the surrounding agencies be they city, parks, highway, transit whoever use them. 

Prosecuting services why not tap into local authorities services? As for training to back to the regional training centres with every force paying in again like they do in the states.

Policing wise under national models communities suffer, especially ones where there isn't deemed to be an operational requirement to patrol or provide much of a service...

Edited August 2, 2018 by Radman

[Zulu 22 + 4,569]

5 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

Economies of scale?
Your simple view on it means two children cost twice as much as one to the parents, when that clearly is not the case.

Ridiculous comment. Two children are twice as much work as one, eat twice as much.

[David + 4,981]

I've never understood the different IT systems used by each Force that don't communicate with each other. It makes no sense at all. Whilst overall the savings will be minimal, it would certainly ease cooperation of all Forces if they used one cohesive system.

I don't buy the 'extra 400 officers' claim either and certainly not because of one Chief Constable going. Sounds like it's smoke and mirrors to me.

[Zulu 22 + 4,569]

6 hours ago, BlueBob said:

The subtle difference from a purely financial merger is they are openly saying they want the community's backing rather than doing it despite those views.

Chief Constables and PCC's have continuously ignored what the Community want for years now. The Communities wanted access to officers and Police Stations.  Now you hardly ever see an officer and find that Police Stations are permanently closed down or on very restricted hours.

As regards to training local training cannot compare with the old Training School systems which were uniform in approach country wide. Local training usually consists of cliques.

[Reasonable Man + 1,230]

16 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

Ridiculous comment. Two children are twice as much work as one, eat twice as much.

Seriously? The only cost to children is their food?

I'll humour you: it doesn't cost twice as much to transport two, or more, children to school, trips, activities etc as it does to transport one. One child has a games consul, trampoline, garden swing etc two children can share them. One child has to have all new clothes, child two can have 'hand me downs' (you should have seen me in my big sister's old shoes!). One child needs a new pram, cot, baby monitor etc. second child can use the existing items.