To police or not to police: is that the question?...

[ahinton]

Lately, it has been reported in various places that certain UK police forces, rather than investigate crimes reported to them by members of the public, allegedly encourage those who report them to investigate them themselves, presumably on behalf of the police. What I have yet to hear or read, however, is whether such investigation reports must ultimately to be submitted to the police when completed, in order that the police may take credit for investigations that they did not themselves carry out; it also remains unclear what action might be taken, or by whom, when the successful result of any such investigations suggests that someone should be arrested for and charged with the crime/s concerned, which is rather important given that such devolution of investigative powers by the police is presumably not intended to confer upon the public the responsibility for arresting and charging criminals, let alone what usually follows in such cases. One might also wonder whether the police would charge administrative fees for the acceptance and processing of such reports, especially as this exercise is alleged to be necessitated by budget cuts to the police service.

The understandable public chagrin arising from such allegations seems to me to be exacerbated by the fact that the Home Secretary is now apparently seeking to merge the police, fire and ambulance servoces, likewise for the purpose of saving money. Just imagine a 999 call (assuming that the 999 service doesn't get merged with the now widely discredited 111 disservice as part of this exercise) in which the respondent answers "fire, police and ambulance" instead of the usual "fire, police or ambulance?" and the caller has little option but to reply "yes"; lest it be a case of "my cat's stuck up a burning tree and will likely need to be taken to hospital", it seems hard to see how such a merged "service" could ever function in practice, so perhaps the next step will be for callers to 999 to be advised to hire their own fire engines or ambulances and deal with any police emergency themselves and then report back to the merged emergency service with the outcome/s.

Privatisation of the Home Office, anyone?

[Serial_Apologist]

If correct, these suggestions either mark an extraordinary sudden uncharacteristic outgrowth of faith in civic responsibility out there in the communi'ee on behalf of the political establishment or, much more likelily, given the unjoined-up thinking you have rightly highlighted, the preliminary to handing the problem on to Ed Miliband next May. It could be argued that none of this would have been proposed had it not been for the parlous economic state resulting from the banking crash.

[ahinton]

If correct, these suggestions either mark an extraordinary sudden uncharacteristic outgrowth of faith in civic responsibility out there in the communi'ee on behalf of the political establishment or, much more likelily, given the unjoined-up thinking you have rightly highlighted, the preliminary to handing the problem on to Ed Miliband next May

Quite - except that I'm far from certain that the Miliband of brothers or indeed anyone else will hold the reins of power after the next General Election; still, better that, perhaps, than that it remain in the hands of the current May!

It could be argued that none of this would have been proposed had it not been for the parlous economic state resulting from the banking crash.

It could indeed but, since it's so obviously the case, there would seem to be little possible room for such "argument" per se.

That said, the knee-jerk May actions and proposed actions appear to tak no account of the fact that, should Scotland opt for "independence" in less than a fortnight's time, the Home Office in general and the police service in particular will, at a stroke, become responsible for almost 12% fewer citizens than is the case now; surely the economic savings attributable to that ought to count for something (unless, of course, the "No" voters win the day).