Neighbours hire their own police force for £3 a week.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:54 pm

Neighbours hire their own police force for £3 each a week | Mail Online

Is this a good Idea?

On one hand, I think It is brilliant. These guys have no governemnt targets to reach and will not be interested in the quick collar to boost the figures to save their jobs.

On the other hand, these guys will be using Citizen Arrest powers which I am in no doubt will lead to them being prosecuted by police for assault or any other accusation thrown at them.

As the police force in Britain rapidly loses the faith of the public and becomes increasingly mis-trusted, will more Towns look for this solution?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:45 pm

oscar;1226612 wrote: Neighbours hire their own police force for £3 each a week | Mail Online

Is this a good Idea?

On one hand, I think It is brilliant. These guys have no governemnt targets to reach and will not be interested in the quick collar to boost the figures to save their jobs.

On the other hand, these guys will be using Citizen Arrest powers which I am in no doubt will lead to them being prosecuted by police for assault or any other accusation thrown at them.

As the police force in Britain rapidly loses the faith of the public and becomes increasingly mis-trusted, will more Towns look for this solution?

They might not have government targets but they have something worse - public expectation.

They are being hired to make arrests and will do so purely to justify their existence - pointing to a reduction in crime at the end of the year just won't cut it, they need to be seen to be active.

It doesn't even matter too much whether those arrested get convicted at the end of the day - just blame the lenient courts "we're doing our job gov'nr".

The result will be innocent people tarred with accusations they will find difficult or impossible to clear.

Vigilante justice is dangerous. Private police forces even more so.

It was wrong when the "Guardian Angels" tried to foist themselves on us and it is wrong now.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:21 am

Bad idea, we don't have private police forces or private militias for very good reasons.

Look at it this way you are walking along a residential street minding your own business and a policeman stops and asks you what you are doing is one thing that most of us would answer and then ask why they want to know. A private policeman or a security guard on private property I might accept they have a right to challenge but on the open street no way. You just know what the average teenager or group of teenagers is gong to say in response. These people would do better to get involved with the local police commission or take it up with the chief constable.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:22 pm

The biggest problem I see would be the residents calling the security firm when there's a problem they could not possibly deal with

and so vital time would be lost.

How would they give chase if a car is stolen?

They could only do the speed limit, no flashing lights.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:27 pm

abbey;1226936 wrote: The biggest problem I see would be the residents calling the security firm when there's a problem they could not possibly deal with

and so vital time would be lost.

How would they give chase if a car is stolen?

They could only do the speed limit, no flashing lights.
I like the idea of walking the streets to deter anti-social behaviour and I like the Idea of escorting residents to the bank etc but I do agree there could be endless problems with this scheme.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:30 pm

Wow class differences is still a problem in the UK?

Okay who will they arrest? where do they hand the suspects over to police? what if these lovely affluent kids gets caught doing something ........Will you here shouted from the top of buildings ..." I pay my 3 pound a week stop arresting our kids and go arrest those poor people!!!" I think you're going to find that only those in the outer "rundown" sections of society get arrested......Never mind the affluent drug dealers.

they are not police they are security guards lets not confuse the two. Can't wait to see what happens if they really hurt someone in a struggle.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:30 pm

abbey;1226936 wrote: The biggest problem I see would be the residents calling the security firm when there's a problem they could not possibly deal with

These people aren't replacing the police, they're extras. The residents could call the police as normal.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:33 pm

I lodged in this area while working on business in Southampton. It is affluent only in area's. Like any area, it has it's rough side and there is a crime problem there especially with anti-social behaviour. It is not all posh kids and families.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:35 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1226943 wrote: I think you're going to find that only those in the outer "rundown" sections of society get arrested......Never mind the affluent drug dealers.

I'm not sure whether it matters who they arrest, as long as they arrest someone, they will be a deterrent. They aren't going to be arresting drug dealers, etc., because these people probably won't expose themselves to the risk (it's hard enough for the police to get them).

fuzzywuzzy;1226943 wrote: they are not police they are security guards lets not confuse the two. Can't wait to see what happens if they really hurt someone in a struggle.

If the struggler has been lawfully arrested, it doesn't matter.

It looks as though their duties will be mostly to deter highly visible anti-social behaviour.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:39 pm

That's my point Bill ...Of who? The affluent kids or the poor kids?

Once you see yourself as "owning " a force you tend to get a bit uppity about who they should police.

Anti social behaviours - that's a lot of law there . I downloaded your anti social behaviour act and it entails a great deal.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:54 pm

Bill Sikes;1226944 wrote: These people aren't replacing the police, they're extras. The residents could call the police as normal.The point is, if they have no confidence in the police then surely they would be more inclined to call the vigilante's?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:55 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1226949 wrote: That's my point Bill ...Of who? The affluent kids or the poor kids?

Once you see yourself as "owning " a force you tend to get a bit uppity about who they should police.

One would hope both sorts. Note, "kids" can vary in age by decades. Isn't the point of this that it's community-funded, not funded by particular individuals? I can't help thinking that it must be a Good Thing. The police are useless, and very expensive. They are also less likely to deal properly with children of "influential" parents, just like these "hired hands" may be.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:57 pm

oscar;1226945 wrote: I lodged in this area while working on business in Southampton. It is affluent only in area's. Like any area, it has it's rough side and there is a crime problem there especially with anti-social behaviour. It is not all posh kids and families.So if the "affluent" people paid for their area wouldn't the anti social behaviour be displaced to the area that cant afford to hire the firm?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:02 pm

That was the word I was looking for vigilante.

Isn't the point of this that it's community-funded, not funded by particular individuals?

But it is funded by individuals . 300 or so of them. Do you honestly think they are paying to have their own Kin arrested? Human behaviour is going to come into this .and the minute you arrest or accost those individuals who are paying you'll see a pulling out of funding. this is not going to change peoples view of law enforcement. it's just going to shift the complaints to another organisation.

To be honest I can't wait to see these guys end up in a scuffle and someone calls the police to deal with them.:yh_rotfl

Police are expensive? Have you ever tallied up a total of your taxes to see what percentage you pay individually as a citizen?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:06 pm

abbey;1226957 wrote: The point is, if they have no confidence in the police then surely they would be more inclined to call the vigilante's?

Call both, why not - scarcely a difficult decision. Is it appropriate to call these people vigilantes, rather than security guards?

I'm not sure it's a matter of having no confidence in the police - just that they are vanishingly unlikely to do anything effective about day-to-day concerns. The newspaper article, which I suppose must be accepted as authoritative for the purposes of this discussion (is there another source?) mentions that 500 need to sign up "within a three-square-mile area". If that gets them two of these people, that could be pretty good coverage - better numbers than can be had from the police.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:12 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1226961 wrote: But it is funded by individuals . 300 or so of them. Do you honestly think they are paying to have their own Kin arrested?

Yup. An arrest is an arrest - it needs to be followed up by taking the arrested person to the nearest policeman or police station.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:14 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1226961 wrote: the minute you arrest or accost those individuals who are paying you'll see a pulling out of funding

So. The affronted individual throws his toys on the floor and shouts "I'm not paying my three quid a week any more". That's not really going to have much effect.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:17 pm

abbey;1226959 wrote: So if the "affluent" people paid for their area wouldn't the anti social behaviour be displaced to the area that cant afford to hire the firm?

Not sure where "affluent" comes into this, considering the amount of individual contribution in question. Yes, of course bad behaviour will be displaced - indeed that's the case right now, with what we've got currently.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:19 pm

[QUOTE=Bill Sikes;1226963]Call both, why not - scarcely a difficult decision. Is it appropriate to call these people vigilantes, rather than security guards?

Reason I say that is do these "citizens police"? have a swearing in or a code of conduct in which to measure their own conduct/integrity by?

For instance we know a portion of fires are lit by weirdo arsonist firefighters who slip through the cracks. When will a rape or assault occur with these guys? Or maybe that's overboard, how about a theft? it's going to happen because there's no procedural way of checking these guys . they are going to be in a position of having peoples confidence and being able to enter homes. I just see a real problem with this down the track

I'm not sure it's a matter of having no confidence in the police - just that they are vanishingly unlikely to do anything effective about day-to-day cincerns. The newspaper article, which I suppose must be accepted as authoritative for the purposes of this discussion (is there another source?) mentions that 500 need to sign up "within a three-square-mile area". If that gets them two of these people, that could be pretty good coverage - better numbers than can be had from the police.

Isn't that the PCSO's job? Or what they were invented for?

Then you'll have a problem of the next three square miles and companies putting in a tender to deal with that area. In no time you're going to have a dozen police forces just like in America. and that aint a good thing.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:21 pm

I think all of this is going to end up with you guys having a stream of second class police forces.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:28 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1226967 wrote: do these "citizens police"? have a swearing in or a code of conduct in which to measure their own conduct/integrity by?

I don't know. "Swearing in" would be meaningless. "A code of conduct" already exists - it's the one that applies to us all (supposedly including "real" policemen).

fuzzywuzzy;1226967 wrote: For instance we know a portion of fires are lit by weirdo arsonist firefighters who slip through the cracks. When will a rape or assault occur with these guys? Or maybe that's overboard, how about a theft?

I'm sure such things could happen - just as they do with "real" policemen (and that's a fact).

fuzzywuzzy;1226967 wrote: it's going to happen because there's no procedural way of checking these guys . they are going to be in a position of having peoples confidence and being able to enter homes.

They will inevitably be subject to CRB checking, as are many people - teachers, doctors, dentists, Scout and Guide helpers, etc. Admittedly CRB checks aren't going to be helpful in all cases (the recent (female) nursery nurse who involved in child pornography activity was CRB checked and OK'd).

These people won't be able to "enter homes".

fuzzywuzzy;1226967 wrote: In no time you're going to have a dozen police forces just like in America.

These people will not be policemen.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:30 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1226970 wrote: I think all of this is going to end up with you guys having a stream of second class police forces.

True, in that these "guards" won't have full police powers. They do have some powers, though - the same as I have - and I'm sure that they could have a deterrent effect.

So, PCSOs must be "second class police forces", too!

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:33 pm

I've experienced many times people thinking that a uniform (especially older folk) is a product of trust.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here . Wait and see I guess.

(the recent (female) nursery nurse who involved in child pornography activity was CRB checked and OK'd).

I don't know anything about this ................but hang her.:-5

Lets face it You're only considered a criminal if you've been caught, otherwise you're an upstanding citizen no matter what you do

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:37 pm

Anti-social behaviour In Britain is not confined to less affluent area's. It is just as likely that a trouble teen will come from affluent homes and parents. It is nonsense to assume that it is only the sink estates with single mothers on benifit that spawn feral youths. Most feral youths come from what appears to be an affluent area and home and yet because their parents are mortgaged to the hilt and have spanked the plastic to the max, they both work three jobs to pay for it while darling little Rodney is being an anti-social menace to the public. My theory was actually given as an explanation by a police officer at one of our meetings.

In many cases where there are feral youths causing the public fear and distress, it merely needs just a police prescence to deter them.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:48 am

abbey;1226936 wrote: The biggest problem I see would be the residents calling the security firm when there's a problem they could not possibly deal with

and so vital time would be lost.

How would they give chase if a car is stolen?

They could only do the speed limit, no flashing lights.

:yh_rotfl ,, sorry ,, honestly abbey do the police in your area do that? here they just give you a crime number for your insurance:-2 I do agree with you on some points though and im not sure wether i think this is a good idea or not,,, maybe if they were used just as an extra security measure,,, eyes and ears Instead of a load of cctv.. and work in cinjunction woth the police,,so if they saw something suspicious would contact police, nit sure if the police would be happy with that though

oscar;1227034 wrote: Anti-social behaviour In Britain is not confined to less affluent area's. It is just as likely that a trouble teen will come from affluent homes and parents. It is nonsense to assume that it is only the sink estates with single mothers on benifit that spawn feral youths. Most feral youths come from what appears to be an affluent area and home and yet because their parents are mortgaged to the hilt and have spanked the plastic to the max, they both work three jobs to pay for it while darling little Rodney is being an anti-social menace to the public. My theory was actually given as an explanation by a police officer at one of our meetings.

In many cases where there are feral youths causing the public fear and distress, it merely needs just a police prescence to deter them.
hear hear!! I also believe they will be the ones more affected by drug abuse,, as the dealers will target the kids who have the money:sneaky: