Last nights Traffic Cops (tinyurl.com/6hhb4wz) showed Bedfordshire police stating they had 'a monthly target of 300 credits to hit'.
What defence would a motorist have against a spurious charge of using a mobile 'phone or not wearing a seat-belt if a cop decided they wanted to increase their credits?
I'm not having a go at our BIBs, but being human they're fallible and might think someone scratching their ear could be on a mobile - as they did last night, particularly if they were short on their quota.
|
>> might think someone scratching their ear could be on a mobile
I got pulled over once when driving a mini-coach as the BiB passed me as I was scratching my right ear. They were most put out when they checked my phone and found that it hadn't been used at the moment that they saw me.
I'm rather glad that I hadn't been talking on my Bluetooth at that moment though. The phone would have shown that it had been in use so how could I have proven that I was using my headset legally and what the policeman saw was me scratching my ear at the same time?
The BiB (generally) have my utmost respect and support. They have an extremely difficult job to do and every decision they make can have a huge impact on peoples' lives and livelihoods.
|
As one of the coppers said last night, "I now have no discretion to hand out a warning"
Point and targets for the old bill should not influence or make any difference to the way they police. Therefore they are not required.
I understand there has to be some form of ongoing appraisal, but this is not the way, it alienates the public and probably makes the job harder.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 15 Jul 11 at 11:39
|
|
If policing is working crime should be falling. It is thus pointless to set fixed targets in this scenario. Same with parking tickets, targets are set and tickets are issued willy-nilly which is why so many appeals are upheld!
|
>> I understand there has to be some form of ongoing appraisal, but this is not
>> the way, it alienates the public and probably makes the job harder.
I agree.
|
I don't really care about this now.
Did you know your GP has targets to meet in order to gain points which translate directly into money for the partners in the surgery? Some of the targets are things like adding overweight patients to an obesity list, every time that patient visits the surgery, the practice computer will prompt the GP to weigh them, even if they're in for something completely unconnected like their child has an infection.
At first I felt pretty outraged, but I've had a think about it and now although it's a bit cheeky dipping an oar in to someone's life like that, it's not doing any harm and in some rare cases might do some good.
But wouldn't a caring doctor be on top of a patients weight anyway? Yeah most likely.
The idea is pretty much the same.
|
|
Its pretty much not the same not by a long way.
|
>> Its pretty much not the same not by a long way.
In what way? In that being on the fat list has no bearing on anyone's life but being on the receiving end of a CU80 means an insurance hike?
How do you get a CU80? How do you get on the fat list?
|
>> >> Its pretty much not the same not by a long way.
>>
>> In what way? In that being on the fat list has no bearing on anyone's
>> life but being on the receiving end of a CU80 means an insurance hike?
>>
>> How do you get a CU80? How do you get on the fat list?
You are pushing the already fragile comparison even further into the realms of nonsense. Do I really need to answer the original one?
|
Imagine the scene at court:
Defence lawyer: So officer, in your statement you said the accused was doing 31 in a 30 zone.
Officer: Yes.
Defence lawyer: And this was on the 31st of the month?
Officer: Yes.
Defence lawyer: And this report from your employer says you needed 300 points for the month?
Officer: Yes.
Defence lawyer: And you had only 299! I suggest that you deliberately falsified this account so that you did not get a warning from your superiors!
Officer: Err!
Things as important as policing should not have this type of target. It is open to abuse and I can imagine some bully inspector types really giving some newish recruits a hard time over this so that they do go down the wrong route and god forbid they create evidence of falsely accuse someone to get a met appraisal - surely that would be perverting the course of justice at the very least!
Extending the argument a little: If my boss orders me to speed by giving me targets to reach that cause me to speed, he is also guilty of an offence.
If a superiors actions or policy created an environment where an officer broke the law to secure a conviction, then that superior should be prosecuted as well.
|
|
Judging by the price of fuel (less than 120 a litre) seen in the scene where the bad accident was, I reckon that this was filmed quite some time ago. Most Forces have dropped targets since the last election. So I guess it was old news since superseded..
|
|
Given the number of drivers I see on their phones, I reckon I'd make my quota by about the 10th of the month.
|
>> Given the number of drivers I see on their phones, I reckon I'd make my
>> quota by about the 10th of the month.
>>
Please come here .. I've seen drivers reversing and talking into a mobile phone...
|
Yesterday, one (female) in a suit in a Freelander with a trailer on a roundabout eating cereal from a bowl with a spoon and cutting me up! Lucky we were only doing 2 mph.
When I stood on my horn the bowl and its contents went everywhere!
I know it was wrong, but I chuckled to myself all day!
|
>> eating cereal
What cereal and milk I wonder - it's going to stink in there from the milk when it gets hot.
Recently I've been followed by drivers on their mobiles and you can see they are struggling to hold the phone, change gear, steer etc. I feel like pulling up and getting out with them stuck behind me.
Maybe I should slam on the brakes and get them to hit the car. And then get them into deeper trouble for being on the phone. :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 16 Jul 11 at 01:08
|
I've nearly got a degree in targets. They ALWAYS produce some unwanted behaviours. What you actually want police to do is quite complex, and the targets are necessarily simple.
I'll give you a non-police example.
An A & E department has an apparently sensible target of getting every patient treated and on their way, OR admitted if that's what is required, within 4 hours of arrival. They do their best. But sometimes there are too many patients or it takes longer to treat them than usual.
There are three patients who have been there nearly four hours and need to see a doctor, but still haven't seen one. It's quite possible that they will be seen within an hour or two, and if all is as expected they will be on their way.
But behaviours are now driven by targets, not what is best for the patient or even the most efficient and sensible compromise, so they are admitted. They are subsequently sent home the following morning. Meanwhile three people's operations have been cancelled because there is no bed for them...
I'm sure we've all had the experience of trying to get a quack's appointment and been told there are none for today or tomorrow, and we should call back the following morning at 8.30. It's not permitted to book an appointment 2 days ahead as common sense would suggest, otherwise they will fail to meet the target of offering all patients an appointment within 48 hours...
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 15 Jul 11 at 20:41
|
Not read all this thread, but I also thought the targets were out of hand. In most cases e.g illegal number plates there was no immediate danger, a repair notice (or what ever they call them) would have been better, and if the person does get it done within 14 days then hand out fines.
Mobile phone use is another matter, there is no excuse and points and a fine all the time for me.
|
|
Not all will feel the need to tick every box, some will only nick when a nick is deserved.
|
>> Not all will feel the need to tick every box, some will only nick when
>> a nick is deserved.
You're absolutely right GB, and if that wasn't the case life would be intolerable. But the system doesn't always reward the right people.
|
>> Not all will feel the need to tick every box, some will only nick when
>> a nick is deserved.
Alas, the system they were working forced them to tick the boxes. "deserved" did not have its own box.
|
Targets and Performance Monitoring are different but with similar outcomes.
How do you ensure that reasonably well paid PC Lazy Slob (aka Cuffs) is actually doing any work other than turning up every day? PC Keen gets the same money is enthusiastic and carries a high work load.
Some sort of benchmark has to be set. However that benchmark has to be flexible as self motivated ticks are difficult to get when faced with a high response workload. The type of shift plays a part. Difficult to spot seatbelts and phones at night.
Having been subject to what was known as MIDs - Management Information Documents, better known as 'tick sheets', it was always at the back of your mind to get a few tickles to keep the Boss happy at the end of the month. Thing was and is they really are not hard to get. So the ball lies in the public court. And that's not for petty offences just for the tick.
I remember when FPTs became the vogue and you had to total the numbers of endorsable and non endorsable issued at the month end. That was fine until the Insp. actually threatened to contact the Ticket Office to find out how many had actually been issued. Oh heck!
Any organisation has performance monitoring as someone somewhere has to justify its existence.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 15 Jul 11 at 22:40
|
Some form of performance monitoring in policing is needed, no doubt it's needed in most jobs. This sort of performance monitoring is definitely not needed.
I know of one bit of road where there's a dual carriageway that runs over the top of a major junction, it's about a third of a mile long, is up in the air, has no pedestrian access, no junctions, no real hazards...yet is set at a 30mph limit....because the roads at either end of it are 30mph limits and the authorities don't want people speeding up on the dual carriageway bit, then keeping their speed going in the slower bits.
Guess which bit some of my colleagues would frequent when they were strictly monitored on out and out figures.. and were getting to the end of ther monitored period?
It is not at all unreasonable to do 60mph over that bit of road, yet it's set at 30mph, so it's like taking candy from a baby to issue tickets there, (because it should naturally be, say a 50mph limit).. and wholly unnecessary to do so when there are other areas, one less than a mile away, where some decent traffic enforcement could get in amongst the truly lawless....and let's face it most crooks are crooks across the whole spectrum, so their cars will be illegal, as well as much, if not most, of the rest of their day to day activities.
One good thing I noticed on the Bedfordshire Police programme, was the two female cops went straight for the estate where they thought there might be some illegal activity (and with it some potential confrontation) rather than avoiding any hassle by going to the 'nice' parts and concentrating on Mr or Mrs Average.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 16 Jul 11 at 12:23
|
WP thats always been he case. This is only relevent with speeding though. Areas where there are easy hits where, using the common sense approach, clearly a bit of excessive speed is of no danger.
Historically though you could set your threshold higher, say 45 in a 30 limit, so that anyone caugt really couldn't feel so badly done to. But thresholds were set nationaly taking discretion away.
My argument is though that say someone reaches the dizzy heights of Traffic (old school) they should not rest on their laurels and have to be seen to be pulling their weight. There are plenty more willing to take their places. So how do make the judgement between someone pulling their weight or not?
|
When the managers/supervisors are out and about as well, it's not hard to know who is working and who isn't.
Who takes all the easy calls and then talks a good job, who will always turn up second, who will take a call just before the end of the shift knowing they'll be late off for no extra (or conversely always does it to grab the overtime), who will take the unpopular call, who can you rely on when you need that 'bit extra', who does the struggling probationer ask to be posted out with, who will come and tell you when someone else isn't pulling their weight.
I made sure my lot knew I wanted quality not quantity...despite pressure from 'upstairs' at times, during the worst of the 'figures era'. It seems to have moved on somewhat now, which is good...... and I never got a rollocking for not playing the figures game...
There will always be those that need leaning on....and those that will only ever deserve praise.
Setting targets is lazy management. It's a broad catch all. The busy cop will never have problems reaching the targets, so it's only the lazy gits who don't work hard enough that need addressing....and that should be done via close management, not setting everyone targets.
|
'Close management'. Therein lies the rub. That seems to be the difficulty. Remember 'Tenure'
- everyone was Tenured but some more Tenured than others. Yes Supervision does know the shirkers and workers.
The first batch were the 'sick lame, lazy and had festered in post'. Should have gone earlier but staffing issues can be in the to difficult to do tray. Very difficult to move someone these days.
Then say we were looking at 'unsatisfactory performance'. You go through the SMART Action Plan process but you have to have some quantifiable evidence and that would mean setting some sort of taget to achieve.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a target ot tick sheet lover by any means but they will exist in some way shape or form. There are targets and statistics as well. You know the kind of thing. Christmas time - positive action. How many neg. and how many pos. breath tests. All ends in statistics which are compared to previous years.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 16 Jul 11 at 20:15
|
>> 'Close management'. Therein lies the rub. That seems to be the difficulty. Remember 'Tenure'- everyone was Tenured but some more Tenured than others.
Ah 'Tenure', what a fiasco that was.
The problem is managers failing to manage. If someone needs moving because they're stale, lazy, incompetent...then move them. If they're that bad, there should be loads of evidence...if not the manager is incompetent.
Instead of that they dream up something that affects everyone, good or bad.
|
>> Instead of that they dream up something that affects everyone, good or bad.
>>
Isn't that the modern management way in many industries too, geared to the lowest common denominator.
Some bods who should never have been driving transporters couldn't get a certain makers larger cars onto the rear position top deck without hitting the car in front....result?, don't train them properly or shift them, oh no, instead the 75% who could were not allowed to.
|
Police working to monthly prosecutions target - Badwolf
