Why does it take so long to clear Motorway incidents?

[SirGalahad]

ACPO has changed the attitude of the police from being a servant of the public if you like, to being a trade union that protects it's members first, and won't allow them to do anything that may bring them into harm. You have to have adequate training before you can do anything, you need to do a risk assesment before you jump in anywhere, and you can't allow other members of the public to step in and show you up - sorry, you've got to protect them from their own stupidity as well.

What's the solution. Get rid of ACPO, and remind the police that they are there to protect us, not preservetheir domain.

So you are against Unionism - its a form of collective bargaining?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is there confusion between ACPO and PFEW?

 

[motorbiking]

Police federation is the union for the rank and file officers. They have a black one for black officers. The ACPO was largely an institute of directors type outfit. Setting standards and agreeing policy. It also stops different policies in different regions. it didn't really work, when for example the north wales CPO had zero tolerance speeding days (they'd refer you at 1mph over) while other forces adopted a 10+9mph (though officially it was supposed to be 10%+2). Some years ago I did a lot of work with the police.. the most untrustworthy, corrupt, stupid, warped thinking bunch of people you could come across. And then there were a large minority who were absolute gold and really understood what good they could do in the world.

 

[Doggit]

ACPO were reckonned to be the bigest stumbling block to getting the police reformed. Although it was primarily for the guys at the top, they then pushed the ideas downwards. It became an old boys clud, and was completely unnacountable to anyone. Unions are one thing, and run properly, will defend the members, but what is effectively organised corruption, is comletely another. They started up the driver awarness courses that you can take rather than have points. It was very much designed to increase it's revenues, more so than make the police an effective force designed to protect the public.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

ACPO were reckonned to be the bigest stumbling block to getting the police reformed. Although it was primarily for the guys at the top, they then pushed the ideas downwards. It became an old boys clud, and was completely unnacountable to anyone. Unions are one thing, and run properly, will defend the members, but what is effectively organised corruption, is comletely another. They started up the driver awarness courses that you can take rather than have points. It was very much designed to increase it's revenues, more so than make the police an effective force designed to protect the public.

Oh dear! Doggit is determined to misinform at every opportunity.

The National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme originated from a recommendation made by Dr Peter North (Sir Peter North) in his Road Traffic Law Review of 1988. (Dr Peter North worked for Department for Transport.)

NDORS, the scheme is not a private company. However, until April 2016 there was a private company NDORS Ltd that provided business support and administered the financial arrangements regarding the collection and distribution of the central cost recovery charge. NDORS Ltd was a not-for-profit company. From April 2016, NDORS, the scheme has been operated by UKROEd Ltd, a private not-for-profit company, which is operating the scheme on behalf of the Road Safety Trust for the UK Police Forces. For more information about the trust please visit: https://roadsafetytrust.org.uk/about-us

ACPO agreed that it could support forces by offering a suite of national course and at the same time recover the police costs (cost recovery only) of administering the process from detection to course completion from the offender in a similar vein to other restorative justice initiatives.

The scheme financial model is designed to provide police with central cost recovery only. The enforcement costs of collecting evidence, serving forms and fixed penalties with the offer of a course, organising courses, monitoring attendance and finalising the evidence on successful attendance costs an average £45. Each offender attending a course contributes £45 to the force initiating their offer. UKROEd receives £4 to run the overall scheme. In total the offender pays £49 to the Police and UKROEd.


The money is divided up into:

• Paying for the cost of the course to the course provider.
• Restoring the costs of processing the offender from detection to disposal of the case to the police force.
• A contribution towards the national database.
• A contribution towards the administrative and business support arrangements for the national regime.
• A contribution towards course development, evaluation, monitoring, and research.
• Any additional funds are given to the Road Safety Trust.

The first Speed Awareness Courses started to emerge as local courses in various parts of the country in early 2006. They were very limited and diverse, with little research behind them.

https://ndors.org.uk/faqs/


Perhaps doggit would also like to clarify and elaborate on his claim:

ACPO were reckonned to be the bigest stumbling block to getting the police reformed.

It looks to me, at first glance, that doggit is trying to misinform again:

The reforms were overwhelmingly rejected by members of the Police Federation of England and Wales: 91% of the federation's 84,000 members voted against the changes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/13/police-reform-act

The real potential for saving police time and resources lies in introducing more effective information technology.

The President of ACPO, Mr Chris Fox, said that there had been big successes in fighting bureaucracy, ...However, a “major stumbling block” in the way of reducing paperwork had been the failure to introduce an integrated electronic case and custody system.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) described itself as an “enthusiastic proponent of the police reform process”.

the Police Federation (the staff association for over 95% of police officers) was the least enthusiastic about the reform programme.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/370/370i.pdf

Maybe this is why doggit is trying to disparage ACPO:

We support the view of ACPO and the Government that membership of the BNP and similar racist organisations is incompatible with being a police officer, and look forward to this restriction being made legally enforceable. We believe that formal restrictions should be complemented by a determined effort to root out unacceptable attitudes.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/370/370i.pdf

 

[motorbiking]

You really do have a terrible way of making a point wannabe. When you are wrong, you go off on a complete loopy tangent, in the hope the person you are debating with loses the will to argue. When you have a valid point to make, you do so on the assumption that the person you are correcting somehow has an agenda or is deliberately lying.

Have you ever thought of trying to actually convince the person constructively, rather than discredit them? People might listen to you more.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

You really do have a terrible way of making a point wannabe. When you are wrong, you go off on a complete loopy tangent, in the hope the person you are debating with loses the will to argue. When you have a valid point to make, you do so on the assumption that the person you are correcting somehow has an agenda or is deliberately lying.

Have you ever thought of trying to actually convince the person constructively, rather than discredit them? People might listen to you more.

Have you ever thought about advising doggit against making false allegations?

Come to think about it:

When you are wrong, you go off on a complete loopy tangent, in the hope the person you are debating with loses the will to argue.

Have you ever thought about making false allegations yourself?

 

[Doggit]

Have you ever thought of trying to actually convince the person constructively, rather than discredit them? People might listen to you more.

Well I suppose it's the only way he knows how to reply; not everyone is capabale of debating. But I suppose if I was a left wing Guardian reader, I'd agree with everything he posted, and then there'd be no need to discuss anything. I suppose then we'd just need an "agree with" button instead of thanks or like.

But the truth about Wannabe, is that he's a bully, pure and simple, nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[motorbiking]

@wannabeDIY No false allegations made in his last post on the ACPO and speed awareness courses. Mostly just opinion. You do get that these courses cost £100 typically and the "costs" are reimbursed to the force, if the individual opted for court the police would get nothing back, because they are already funded.

So if i am funded and get my costs back. It starts to look very similar to profit.

 

[Doggit]

Here are 2 non Guardian reports on some of the truth behind the speed awareness courses. It gives a completely different aspect on the reason they're being pushed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35170779
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-drivers-attend-speed-awareness-courses.html

 

[JohnD]

I thought the objective of the speed courses was to try to get some of the motorists to speed less? I don't know to what extent they work.

"Most forces keep about £35 of the fee - between £79.50 and £92.50 in total - depending on area and course provider, or it goes to road safety partnerships they run with councils."

Would a fine cost the drivers more? The Mail says the courses are "undercutting the Government-imposed fine" so surely the speeding drivers are getting off lightly and saving money. I don't know if it's blackmail to say "take this option and save money"

Do you think it is true that "‘The enforcement costs, including collecting evidence, serving forms and fixed penalties with the offer of a course, organising courses, monitoring attendance and finalising the evidence on successful attendance, are an average £35. Each offender attending a course returns £35 to the force initiating their offer.’ " or do you think that is a lie printed in the Mail?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Well I suppose it's the only way he knows how to reply; not everyone is capabale of debating.

Just like false allegations. It is not debate, it is pure lies!

But I suppose if I was a left wing Guardian reader, I'd agree with everything he posted, and then there'd be no need to discuss anything. I suppose then we'd just need an "agree with" button instead of thanks or like.

If you insist on posting pure conjecture and fantasy, be prepared to be corrected.
I notice that you are no longer debating but have resorted to further disparagement.

But the truth about Wannabe, is that he's a bully, pure and simple, nothing more, and nothing less.

I must promise to try not to bully you......and **** end, and his bra friend, and mitch, and silly judith, and dave hearns, and now motorbiking.
I am such a bully I will take on seven of you at the same time, not to mention creating special threads just to denigrate them.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

@wannabeDIY No false allegations made in his last post on the ACPO and speed awareness courses.

I was not referring to any allegations made in this thread.

Mostly just opinion.

Now corrected opinion.

You do get that these courses cost £100 typically and the "costs" are reimbursed to the force, if the individual opted for court the police would get nothing back, because they are already funded.

So if i am funded and get my costs back. It starts to look very similar to profit.

Only the 'cost recovery' goes to the force, as indicated by the evidence I presented.
If one of the alternative options are followed, the evidence goes to CPS, they are then responsible for further action, at their own expense, which would be recovered in court.
If the other alternative, of fixed penalty is applied, where does that money go to?

I spoke to the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport who told me the income from speeding fines goes into what is known as the Treasury's consolidated fund, which is a bit of jargon that really means the Government's own bank account.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-does-speed-camera-cash-go.html#ixzz4ruxDF400

So does it really matter so much that the police receive the 'cost recovery', rather than the government? Edit: (or the court).
I know which I would prefer.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Here are 2 non Guardian reports on some of the truth behind the speed awareness courses. It gives a completely different aspect on the reason they're being pushed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35170779
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-drivers-attend-speed-awareness-courses.html

The BBC report is purely factual, not allocating any motive to the course attendance increase.
The DM report is well, a typical DM report.
So you are an ardent DM believer?

 

[noseall]

So you are an ardent DM believer?

No one takes the DM seriously.