Should the general public and the commercial sector be concerned about the forthcoming cuts? The answer has to be yes, writes Jim Gannon.
The enforced police officer cuts will no doubt affect the average man in the street (although he does not know how much yet) and businesses; and many I fear in our industry. With police officer numbers standing to fall by 12,000 across the UK – and the most worrying aspect of this being, that the officers with 30 years or more service are the first to go – one has to wonder who sanctioned this crazy policy. Shedding your most experienced and trained officers at 49 or 55 years just does not make sense. I have raised the issue before about rising crime rates and their direct link to front line officers, so itโs not surprising to learn that in European countries where they have more officer numbers they have lower crime figures. To axe officer numbers in the current economic climate will only bring one result and that is higher crime in the UK which will have a significant effect on business, bringing with it a cost impact.
Economic prosperity
While some in government circles continue to talk about economic prosperity being the main driver to impact on overall crime rates and Ken Clarke the Justice Minister is appearing to claim that everything is rosy tackling our crime problem, except our criminal justice system, I have always advocated that police detection rates have the greatest impact on crime. Increase the chance of detection by area or region and crime figures will fall. Focus on crime detection, publicise it when itโs successful, and bingo. This was my over-riding philosophy during my time working in the commercial sector and it was effective but it was a work ethic taken from 13 years as a front line detective, serving under some excellent senior officers in Thames Valley Police.
They don’t like it up โem
While the TV series’ Dads Army’ might be the originator of this well known quote, the fact is that criminals do not like the prospect of being caught and would be offenders are more likely to be put off if detection rates are high. We have seen recently more โhave a go heroesโ, all of which have received wide publicity in the media, followed by public and police praise. While the police are always careful with their advice in this area of crime fighting, secretly they love it because it brings the public on side and for a few weeks after such incidents the general public come forward to do their bit with snippets of information and intelligence all of which helps in the cause to reduce crime. A couple of good captures and increased detection rates will lead to a fall in crime rates but more importantly fewer violent crimes.
A classic false economy
A cut in police officer numbers may appear to some as just the price the public has to pay to avoid a national bankruptcy. Like everything else in the public sector it has to swallow the cost- cutting pill and get on with it; but is it a false economy ? More crime brings increased economic and social costs but we should not under-estimate the human misery associated with high crime rates especially where violent crime is concerned. The denial that fewer officers will lead to higher crime figures will in turn impact on households generally, but the greater expense will be borne by the commercial sector who will be faced with decisions to increase their security protection; or face higher insurance protection costs. Nick Herbert the Police Minister has stated that efficiency savings can be made in the way our police forces operate. While he cites reports from the Audit Commission and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary as evidence, the facts are that if police officer numbers are to be cut and at the same time be asked to fill positions vacated by back room civilian staff being made redundant, who is going to respond to front line requirements.
It appears to me that just demanding greater efficiencies and expecting it to happen without much changing in real terms, has a lack of realism attached to it and whilst Nick Herbert obviously has his own priorities, it will not be him who has to implement these so called efficiencies or in fact face the headache of working out how they can be achieved without it affecting services.
Is there an answer?
The decision and power to allocate resources usually ends up being decided by people behind desks and not with the front line workers, whose faces are covered by the sweat of having to do the task required. The chief ‘Ironsides’ of this world are never going to cut themselves but the simple demand for greater efficiencies is never going to solve itself or work either, without some form of constructive direction. All crime at whatever level has a right to be dealt with and while we as an industry may wish to prioritise certain categories which affect us and suit our requirements, the reality is we are not at the top of the list and will be lucky even to make it into the top ten if the planned cuts go ahead fully. We have seen how some of the cuts are affecting the Fire Service. Some authorities are cutting the standard fire tender crew from five firefighters to three and some areas plan to send a fire service car out to the scene first, for automated fire alarm calls, to ensure itโs not a false alarm. This is a clear indicator of whatโs to come. Itโs my belief that commercial crime may become the category that continues to fall down the list while domestic and violent crime demands much of the available police resource. This may well produce opportunities for some of the sectors within our industry but it will not in my opinion go without pain and penalty for others.
