OK, I'll believe you!
Bouncers get the right to issue on-the-spot fines
- Thread starter Fruitloop
- Start date
I couldn't agree more (though I'd also throw in a bit of Thatcher's "no-such-thing-as-society-ist Greed-is-Good-ism" too ...).
What we have to work out is how to deal effectively (and efficiently!) with the situation we now have.
My personal idea, that would be subject to shared agreement within the as yet to be determined area of jurisdiction is that they would then question them under suspicion of an alleged offense and if they still suspected them after this process and the person in question still denied their guilt they would be arrested. Depending on the level of the offense they would then be sent to a community court hearing, a magistrate court etc.. etc..
free spirit
more tea vicar?
1 - I'm entirely unconvinced that PCSO's on the beat perform any useful function beyond that of fake public reassurance, a view that most senior police officers I've met with since they were introduced seem to have a fair degree of sympathy with.That is a valid point and it comes back to the fundamental issue I have mentioned a few times. But I am not sure that it is the "first time" - we have had all sorts of powers which were once only for constables given to others for many years now (such as that list of people I asked whether or not you would have and, if not, how much would you be willing to put up taxes to provide fully trained constables to take back the functions from).
Do you really not accept that there is no need for a fully trained, multi-skilled police officer simply to act as a Gaoler? Or to act as a dock officer? Or whatever?
2 - Gaoler, dock officer... without looking at the specifics of each job role I'd not be able to say for sure, but my instinct would be against having less well trained / worse paid people looking after potentially vulnerable people in police cells etc given the history of incidents involving properly trained coppers in these situations.
3 - I'd have more civilian support staff to do more of the admin / paperwork side of things to reduce the workload on the fully trained constables, and would prefer to replace 2 PCSO's with one constable any day of the week, which I believe is around the cost equation.
btw, I put my money where my mouth is - when we pay for police services for events, we don't pay for PCSO's because they perform no useful function for us
OK ... so would you be happy if we said let's take out the "questioning them" bit and simply replaced it with issuing them a notice which said "We think you have committed this offence. Over the next few days have a think about it. If you admit your guilt please tick box A and we'll send you a date to come to the community panel and work out what should be the penalty. If you don't, tcik box B and we'll send you a date to come to Magistrates Court to be tried by Magistrates / jury of your peers"?
OK, I'll believe you!
At least one council has a specific motion not to require that clubs scan people as part of their license condition. Other clubs are installing this equipment to matain their licenses, to collect details for markeeting purposes and analysis of things like thier male/female ratio.
Not even this government is stupid to enough to create direct legislation requiring everyone to produce ID . There are far more subtle method to do that.
I'd agree with points 1 and 3 (with the slight rider that I think there are times and places where PCSOs could be used effectively but the police seem to be almost deliberately avoiding using them in those roles!
)As for (2) ... there is ample evidence that someone performing a specific task such as gaoler, very rapidly becomes more dedicated, skilled and experienced at that task than someone who has a multiplicity of skills and tasks, particularly if many of them are more interesting than the one in question. In my experience, police officers are very, very good at some things and very, very bad at others. It makes perfect sense to try and identify the latter category especially, and try and find better ways of doing them and better people to do them and to ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place to ensure that the public is protected from any downside of any transfer of powers.
No issuing someone a notice without questioing what they are doing would be daft.
OK. But if we left that in, ending with the service of the notice, you would be OK with it?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
like I said, I'd need to know what the specifics of the job role were before taking a proper view on it. In principle though, I've no objection to the idea that there are some roles that police constables have traditionally performed that could be undertaken as well or better by dedicated people trained speficially for that job role, potentially including the 2 examples you gave.I'd agree with points 1 and 3 (with the slight rider that I think there are times and places where PCSOs could be used effectively but the police seem to be almost deliberately avoiding using them in those roles!
As for (2) ... there is ample evidence that someone performing a specific task such as gaoler, very rapidly becomes more dedicated, skilled and experienced at that task than someone who has a multiplicity of skills and tasks, particularly if many of them are more interesting than the one in question. In my experience, police officers are very, very good at some things and very, very bad at others. It makes perfect sense to try and identify the latter category especially, and try and find better ways of doing them and better people to do them and to ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place to ensure that the public is protected from any downside of any transfer of powers.
I'd also accept what you say about PCSO's having potential to be useful in certain limited situations, but not actually often being used in those positions
A notice to attend a community court for people who admit their guilt, yes I would. A notice with a fixed fine - no.
OK, so (as you've obviously realised) that would be a penalty notice in all aspects except the fixed fine - no assumption as to guilt by issuing the notice, no forcing of anyone to tick box A or B, no removal of the right of a not guilty person to ask for a trial.
Would you say that such a process should only be conducted by a constable? If so, why not, say a train security officer in relation to a fares offence, or a park warden in relation to littering offence?
revol68
what, fucking what?
would it fuck, or at least I assume they are daft enough to want to give such powers to paramilitary ex prisoners.
The idea of doormen with such powers is fucking terrifying.
Similar threads
