Boris .. having a named Police Officer for crime

I've not seen a policeman in my village for about 20 years. Maybe longer.

Jane....just google it, plenty comes up.Why do you think the Opposition and various others ( including the Federation, the union of the police) are moaning about it, if it’s already established practice?

Keir thinks it's a ridiculous gimmick

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/named-police-officer-johnson-starmer-b1890521.html

NotSpaghetti

If you are Essex Granny Gravy
try this:
1. Google "Essex police" and click onto the homepage.
2. Then a box will open to "find your area" - type in your area.
3. A new page opens with an overview ... scroll down beyond the charts etc and there's a section about your community team.
It says "About us", "Meeting and Events", "Nearest Station" and "Your Team". This last one gives you the names and roles of all staff in your patch.

I looked up Southend as I'm not very good at places in Essex.
Obviously a lot of named people in that particular team.

Some other places I looked up have small teams.
I found two PCSOs, two Constables, an Inspector, and a Sergeant in a place I used to live for example.

Hope that works!

Jane - just try this same search (with your own area instead of the example) and see what comes up.

?

Was the Greater Manchester roll-out part of a wider government programme?

I can find reporting on this around January/February time. However, nowhere does this refer to the government. That doesn't mean the government is trying to own something others have already done but perhaps someone could give me a link saying the scheme earlier in the year was government-run.

grannyactivist

We have a Neighbourhood Beat Officer whose number is on speed dial on my phone, this is not a new initiative. However, the local police station was closed to callers years ago and with barely any police officers available to respond to crimes I’m not sure what the advantage of knowing a police officers name actually is.

In addition to having a very close professional working relationship with my local force we have a Chief Inspector, a detective and a PC in the family, so I have an informed view of policing in my area. There are simply not enough officers - and ‘naming’ the ones there are won’t alter that.

Excellent post

My understanding of this is that after rather a debacle around policing in Manchester and the Chief Constable ( I think) being sacked, Andy Burnham and his team raised council tax in the area ( using Mayoral powers) which paid for all the extra police needed to give every neighbourhood or ward their own named police officer.So it was his/their idea in Manchester, and a very good one which is working well.
The government is hoping to go further with this and give every neighbourhood in England and Wales their own named police officer too.It will mean more police needed and I hope they have the courage to go through with it ( Councils will have to put Council taxes up to pay for it no doubt.)
There is a big drive to recruit at the moment, 20,000 needed and about half of that so far, so going in the right direction.

If something works well, I never believe in saying indignantly
‘But that was someone else’s idea!’ It simply doesn’t matter.
At the moment in England and Wales, every neighbourhood does not have a named police officer as Greater Manchester does, so would be a very sensible idea if they had.

So cut police numbers by 20,000, staff as a whole by 23,500 and then claim you are improving policing by trying to recruit 20,000. Honestly it's not claiming you invented the wheel. It's taking the wheels off the car, exclaiming that suddenly you know why it won't go, searching round for some wheels announcing you've solved the problem and sticking them on the car. (of course they might not fit)
Here's the figures www.gmb.org.uk/news/shock-figures-reveal-23500-police-staff-cut-under-tories

A bit reminiscent of the recruiting of thousands of new nurses…

I still haven't worked out why lemon is saying that this is a new initiative (though 'new' now modified to include the Manchester scheme already in operation) when many posters are telling us that 'named officers' have been around for years?

But, whether old or new, it's putting sticking plaster over a severed artery. What is the point of knowing the name of an officer when you know that, because of massive cuts to the justice system, the likelihood of any offence coming to trial in a timely fashion (i.e less than 3 or 4 years after the offence was committed) is close to zero?

The police constables and the federation are both saying that it is a ridiculous gimmick.

Thank you for your explanation Lemongrove.

My next question, to anyone who knows, is where is the money coming from. Is the Government mandating the councils and giving them the money? They have, in the past, just said councils must do x,y,z with no additional money from the central Government. If the latter is the case, I feel sure some councils will not be able to afford it.

If the Police Federation are against this then it is not going to be good for police officers. There are just not enough of them due to cut backs. This could put extra strain on those that are left, which may make things worse not better.

Lemon, I was not aware that I was being 'sarky' but if that is how you see my post, so be it. Maybe try not automatically picking holes in every post I make? It would be appreciated. Anyway, the reason Labour have spoken out is that they quite rightly, consider it hypocritical that the party which cut 21,000 Police Officers posts, 23,000 support posts and closed over 600 Police stations, then effectively awarded the Police a pay cut are suddenly coming out with initiatives, most of which are already in place, and with no suggestions or proposals for where the funding will come from. It is dog whistle politics, but the difference is that finally, people are beginning to rumble them. Oh, and I too have family in the Police service, so I know what I am talking about too.

One of the big problems of cutting police numbers so drastically, putting a freeze on recruitment, then suddenly announcing years later that they can advertise for thousands of recruits to plug the gaps is that the whole cycle of gradual replacement of officers has been broken. All of a sudden the already overstretched service is expected to train all these recruits, and of course a lot of the training has to be on the job. With the best will in the world, they can do without any new initiatives right now.

Police numbers were reduced in 2010 because of the state of the economy at that time, a great shame to do it and a real mistake.Bumping numbers back up is the right thing to do.
If taxes have to go up a little for everyone, then it will be worth it.The more community style policing the better too, which is why I support named officers.It may not come to pass, as the Union ( Federation) is always against any extra demand on the police and Chief Constables ditto.Presumably it won’t happen in any case just yet, but as police numbers rise.

This is one of the problems MaggieMay that a lot of people do not understand. The experienced officers ( the expensive ones) who train and mentor the recruits are leaving in droves, many after having postponed their retirement as requested. The new recruits will be about 2 years before they are fully able to operate without supervision, so it is rather like with nurse recruitment in that the difference between increase in numbers and effective staff is a long time. Also, where do these new officers do their post college training? There are insufficient police stations. I once had a very interesting conversation with a senior prison officer who detailed the difficulties they were all experiencing. The Home Office had made hundreds of senior PO redundant and many were replaced by minimum wage Serco staff. The results were exactly as any of us could have predicted.

So, will the government pay for this? If sufficient money is being made available, it will, I think, be a first. Sir Kevan Collins got one-tenth of what he said was needed to make up for the education children had missed. We know the most disadvantaged missed the most. So, now we know Johnson would neither feed them nor educate them. How on earth can we believe he will keep them safe; the disadvantaged have most to lose with underfunded policing.

Boris has got to the point where he believes in the myths he promotes. As London mayor, he hogged the limelight wanting to be the Christmas fairy, telling people how he was doing such 'wonderful' things for them. He survived his seat-of-pants governance by having a top-notch team. They handled the everyday ups and downs and did the hard work. He does not have this in Parliament; he has failed to delegate and works by backing only those who supported him - however they behave. That is no way to run a government.

So, will the government pay for this?

I think we can safely assume the answer to be 'No'.

The government has already told the NHS to fund the health workers' pay increase from their existing budget and have refused to give the police any pay increase at all. So why would they pay for this initiative?

I don't know how this "named officer" idea will work. I would think he/she will be inundated with enquiries that will have to be answered. What happens when they are not on shift? There is unlikely to be spare staff around to deal with the enquiries.
I understand why police officers don't want this implemented.

This is what the Police Federation have to say about this in a letter to the PM and Home Sec.

Just this weekend, we find out through a Sunday newspaper column about a new so-called Beating Crime Plan. We don’t need old ideas presented as new, we need genuine investment for the whole of the Criminal Justice System and genuine consultation over new ideas. Without that, this is just another ill-thought out initiative.

This comes from a letter saying that the police have no confidence in the PM and the Home Sec.

Letter in full is here. It makes interesting reading.

www.polfed.org/media/17130/letter-to-pm-chancellor-27-july-2021.pdf

I'me so pleased you looked it up MaizieD

I think that his regard for police officers, especially those who died on duty was evident today at the memorial for over five hundred of them
Such a moving ceremony, overtaken by his schoolboy, attention seeking antics
Anyone can have an umbrella 'moment' but to join in Patel smirking was disrespectful and spoke volumes. He was constantly looking to see who was laughing, well not me Johnson
The guy is an embarrassment and a total disgrace

Elleee

I think that his regard for police officers, especially those who died on duty was evident today at the memorial for over five hundred of them
Such a moving ceremony, overtaken by his schoolboy, attention seeking antics
Anyone can have an umbrella 'moment' but to join in Patel smirking was disrespectful and spoke volumes. He was constantly looking to see who was laughing, well not me Johnson
The guy is an embarrassment and a total disgrace

I couldn’t agree more. If he had been a child he would have been reminded to behave.

I was pleased to see Charles etc totally ignoring his antics, and his puerile grin, looking to see who was paying him attention.