Increase in police and crime element of Wiltshire council tax considered by Police and Crime Commissioner

Police and Crime Commissioner Angus Macpherson is considering an increase in the police and crime element of council tax of £3.15 a year for the average home (band D property)

Police and Crime Commissioner Angus Macpherson is considering an increase in the police and crime element of council tax of £3.15 a year for the average home (band D property)

First published in Latest News

Angus Macpherson, Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, is consulting on the police and crime element of council tax for 2014-15.

He is considering an increase in the police and crime element of council tax of £3.15 a year for the average home (band D property).

This to help reduce the impact of significant central government grant reductions on policing and crime services in Wiltshire and Swindon.

An average increase of £3.15 per household would provide Mr Macpherson with an additional £740,000 of local income for 2014-15.

It would still be the lowest council tax rate for police and crime services in the south west.

Looking ahead three years to 2016-17, a proposed increase of £3.15 a year would reduce the potential funding shortfall by £2.3 million, meaning that savings of £12.5m would be required rather than £14.8m.

Since the start of the 'austerity' period, savings of more than £10 million have already been made.

Mr Macpherson said: “During the past few months we have been reviewing the budget very carefully and it is clear that as central government funding continues to reduce more and more, we have to look at a small increase in the police and crime element of council tax.

“The council tax rate for policing and crime services in our area has not increased for the past three years and it will still be the lowest in the south west.

"I do believe people will be willing to pay just a little bit more a year towards sustaining high quality policing and crime services in the county, especially neighbourhood policing.

“Ensuring value for money for residents in Wiltshire and Swindon while maintaining high quality services is very important to me.

"That is why we are embracing new ways of working smarter across the public sector, working with other PCCs and police forces in the south west and local partners.

"As public sector budgets continue to be cut, the aim is to work more effectively together to both improve customer service and reduce costs.”

The current rate of police and crime council tax for an average band D home in Wiltshire and Swindon is £157.77. This would increase to £160.92 under the proposal.

The consultation will run from today until Monday, February 3.

During this time Mr Macpherson and members of his office will attend Wiltshire Council Area Boards and Swindon Council locality meetings to talk with people about the proposal.

People can also read more about the proposal and give their views on the commissioner’s website – www.wiltshire-pcc.gov.uk

Parish and town councils and chambers of commerce will also be informed about the consultation.

Mr Macpherson will be speaking with the Police and Crime Panel about the proposal at a meeting due to take place in Swindon on Wednesday, January 15.

The panel is then due to meet again on Thursday, February 6, where Mr Macpherson will formally give his proposal.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:18pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Mike Hawkins says...

Perhaps the Police and crime Commissioner would consider, instead of raising the Police element of the Wiltshire rates, resigning, and thus saving the taxpayers the cost of himself, his support staff and the wasted £'s he is spending on issues that make no positive contribution to the policing of Wiltshire!
Perhaps the Police and crime Commissioner would consider, instead of raising the Police element of the Wiltshire rates, resigning, and thus saving the taxpayers the cost of himself, his support staff and the wasted £'s he is spending on issues that make no positive contribution to the policing of Wiltshire! Mike Hawkins
  • Score: 18

6:49pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Room101 says...

Yes 3.15 pounds increase is ok. But would like to see a police person on the street not sat in a car or in the office. Can not remember the last police person walking.
Yes 3.15 pounds increase is ok. But would like to see a police person on the street not sat in a car or in the office. Can not remember the last police person walking. Room101
  • Score: 9

7:51am Tue 7 Jan 14

chrisbizarre says...

An increase in council tax is unacceptable considering the service is worse. £3.15 may not seem much but multiply that by the amount of properties that this will affect and the total is a lot of money. Services need to be cut to force the government's hand. Rubbish piling up in the streets and bodies unburied will bring down the government. Last time that happened was in 1979 and we didn't see a Labour government again for 18 years.
An increase in council tax is unacceptable considering the service is worse. £3.15 may not seem much but multiply that by the amount of properties that this will affect and the total is a lot of money. Services need to be cut to force the government's hand. Rubbish piling up in the streets and bodies unburied will bring down the government. Last time that happened was in 1979 and we didn't see a Labour government again for 18 years. chrisbizarre
  • Score: 0

7:55am Tue 7 Jan 14

chrisbizarre says...

chrisbizarre wrote:
An increase in council tax is unacceptable considering the service is worse. £3.15 may not seem much but multiply that by the amount of properties that this will affect and the total is a lot of money. Services need to be cut to force the government's hand. Rubbish piling up in the streets and bodies unburied will bring down the government. Last time that happened was in 1979 and we didn't see a Labour government again for 18 years.
I realise this is only the policing part of the council tax that is going to be raised but you can be sure that once one part is raised other departments will see that as the green light to raise their part of the bill too.
[quote][p][bold]chrisbizarre[/bold] wrote: An increase in council tax is unacceptable considering the service is worse. £3.15 may not seem much but multiply that by the amount of properties that this will affect and the total is a lot of money. Services need to be cut to force the government's hand. Rubbish piling up in the streets and bodies unburied will bring down the government. Last time that happened was in 1979 and we didn't see a Labour government again for 18 years.[/p][/quote]I realise this is only the policing part of the council tax that is going to be raised but you can be sure that once one part is raised other departments will see that as the green light to raise their part of the bill too. chrisbizarre
  • Score: 2

10:14am Tue 7 Jan 14

brasstacks says...

Mike Hawkin's post is spot on and...there is NO need for Wiltshire to pay any more salaries to people who "just talk about" our County..

I suggest that Angus have a chat with Jane Scott and ask her how much she rent she is charging Wilts Police for sharing the Council Offices at Monkton Park ?..

Better still if he does care about our County, perhaps he could ring "Captain Dave at Downing St" and tell him Wiltshire Residents CANNOT go on subsidising the Conservative led Councils Political obsessions and over spending and waste..
Mike Hawkin's post is spot on and...there is NO need for Wiltshire to pay any more salaries to people who "just talk about" our County.. I suggest that Angus have a chat with Jane Scott and ask her how much she rent she is charging Wilts Police for sharing the Council Offices at Monkton Park ?.. Better still if he does care about our County, perhaps he could ring "Captain Dave at Downing St" and tell him Wiltshire Residents CANNOT go on subsidising the Conservative led Councils Political obsessions and over spending and waste.. brasstacks
  • Score: 5

10:44am Tue 7 Jan 14

shed says...

The people in such positions as this always look so well fed and watered don't they?

Perhaps that's what the expenses are spent on.

or golf club membership........?
The people in such positions as this always look so well fed and watered don't they? Perhaps that's what the expenses are spent on. or golf club membership........? shed
  • Score: 3

11:31am Wed 8 Jan 14

kimcrawley says...

This man and Marie Antoinette Scott are unbelievable. They really think that they can do or say anything; If only it was just golf club membership.
The commissioner really should join the polit bureau that is running the council.
It's a pity that our local version of Pravda does not recognise the level of opposition to these clowns.
How long will it be before we have our first political show trial for somebody who questions the rights of fox hunters to continually break the law.
This man and Marie Antoinette Scott are unbelievable. They really think that they can do or say anything; If only it was just golf club membership. The commissioner really should join the polit bureau that is running the council. It's a pity that our local version of Pravda does not recognise the level of opposition to these clowns. How long will it be before we have our first political show trial for somebody who questions the rights of fox hunters to continually break the law. kimcrawley
  • Score: 1

6:13pm Wed 8 Jan 14

allthedecentnameshavegone says...

The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.
The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable. allthedecentnameshavegone
  • Score: 1

5:00pm Sat 11 Jan 14

politepanda says...

allthedecentnameshav
egone
wrote:
The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.
What - all of them - all of the time?
And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they?
[quote][p][bold]allthedecentnameshav egone[/bold] wrote: The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]What - all of them - all of the time? And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they? politepanda
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Sun 12 Jan 14

allthedecentnameshavegone says...

politepanda wrote:
allthedecentnameshav

egone
wrote:
The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.
What - all of them - all of the time?
And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they?
OK, as an example, each force operates as a stand-alone entitiy. This creates massive costs and essential functions are duplicated. Did you know, for example, that each police force has its own uniform, many in a colour shade that is unique to their force. This means that they cannon benefit from the buying power and economies of scale that would come from a common uniform. They cannot even one supplier buying a common fabric from which the different uniforms could be made.

Similarly, there is no common vehicl policy across forces. Massive savings could be generated in terms of purchase, maintenance and running costs if all forces agreed a common supply policy with one vehicle manufacturer for all of their standard vehicles, just buying the specialist vehicles from other suppliers where necessary. Imagine their buying power if they agreed to buy all of their panda and standard patrol and pursuit cars from, say, Vauxhall, instead of their current diveristy of supply. Their purchasing leverage would increase, their parts inventory would decrease and so would the training costs for their vehicle maintenance teams.

They could also centralise HR functions, they could challenge, rather than accept, their very high rates of staff sickness absence and they could take action against officers actng inappropriately rather than simply letting them retire on dubious medical grounds before their cases are properly investigated.

I could continue, but I think that's enough to answer your question.
[quote][p][bold]politepanda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allthedecentnameshav egone[/bold] wrote: The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]What - all of them - all of the time? And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they?[/p][/quote]OK, as an example, each force operates as a stand-alone entitiy. This creates massive costs and essential functions are duplicated. Did you know, for example, that each police force has its own uniform, many in a colour shade that is unique to their force. This means that they cannon benefit from the buying power and economies of scale that would come from a common uniform. They cannot even one supplier buying a common fabric from which the different uniforms could be made. Similarly, there is no common vehicl policy across forces. Massive savings could be generated in terms of purchase, maintenance and running costs if all forces agreed a common supply policy with one vehicle manufacturer for all of their standard vehicles, just buying the specialist vehicles from other suppliers where necessary. Imagine their buying power if they agreed to buy all of their panda and standard patrol and pursuit cars from, say, Vauxhall, instead of their current diveristy of supply. Their purchasing leverage would increase, their parts inventory would decrease and so would the training costs for their vehicle maintenance teams. They could also centralise HR functions, they could challenge, rather than accept, their very high rates of staff sickness absence and they could take action against officers actng inappropriately rather than simply letting them retire on dubious medical grounds before their cases are properly investigated. I could continue, but I think that's enough to answer your question. allthedecentnameshavegone
  • Score: 1

5:06pm Sun 12 Jan 14

politepanda says...

allthedecentnameshav
egone
wrote:
politepanda wrote:
allthedecentnameshav


egone
wrote:
The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.
What - all of them - all of the time?
And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they?
OK, as an example, each force operates as a stand-alone entitiy. This creates massive costs and essential functions are duplicated. Did you know, for example, that each police force has its own uniform, many in a colour shade that is unique to their force. This means that they cannon benefit from the buying power and economies of scale that would come from a common uniform. They cannot even one supplier buying a common fabric from which the different uniforms could be made.

Similarly, there is no common vehicl policy across forces. Massive savings could be generated in terms of purchase, maintenance and running costs if all forces agreed a common supply policy with one vehicle manufacturer for all of their standard vehicles, just buying the specialist vehicles from other suppliers where necessary. Imagine their buying power if they agreed to buy all of their panda and standard patrol and pursuit cars from, say, Vauxhall, instead of their current diveristy of supply. Their purchasing leverage would increase, their parts inventory would decrease and so would the training costs for their vehicle maintenance teams.

They could also centralise HR functions, they could challenge, rather than accept, their very high rates of staff sickness absence and they could take action against officers actng inappropriately rather than simply letting them retire on dubious medical grounds before their cases are properly investigated.

I could continue, but I think that's enough to answer your question.
No - not really - these are all issues being worked on - amalgamation is something, it seems - that various parties want but that requires vast amounts of time & resources (nothing new there!). There are specialist departments that are going to be centrally based within a tri-force area - weapons training, dog unit, helicopter - traffic units departments. This is all with a view to the eventual Police Service that will serve the entire south-west.
I thought you may have some practical suggestions for immediate cost savings (such as the scrapping of the PCC and his staff - annual savings in excess of a million a year) but perhaps not.
Again - do you really believe that every Wilts Police Officer is "inept, incompetent and inefficient"?
Or is this just hot air?
[quote][p][bold]allthedecentnameshav egone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]politepanda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allthedecentnameshav egone[/bold] wrote: The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]What - all of them - all of the time? And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they?[/p][/quote]OK, as an example, each force operates as a stand-alone entitiy. This creates massive costs and essential functions are duplicated. Did you know, for example, that each police force has its own uniform, many in a colour shade that is unique to their force. This means that they cannon benefit from the buying power and economies of scale that would come from a common uniform. They cannot even one supplier buying a common fabric from which the different uniforms could be made. Similarly, there is no common vehicl policy across forces. Massive savings could be generated in terms of purchase, maintenance and running costs if all forces agreed a common supply policy with one vehicle manufacturer for all of their standard vehicles, just buying the specialist vehicles from other suppliers where necessary. Imagine their buying power if they agreed to buy all of their panda and standard patrol and pursuit cars from, say, Vauxhall, instead of their current diveristy of supply. Their purchasing leverage would increase, their parts inventory would decrease and so would the training costs for their vehicle maintenance teams. They could also centralise HR functions, they could challenge, rather than accept, their very high rates of staff sickness absence and they could take action against officers actng inappropriately rather than simply letting them retire on dubious medical grounds before their cases are properly investigated. I could continue, but I think that's enough to answer your question.[/p][/quote]No - not really - these are all issues being worked on - amalgamation is something, it seems - that various parties want but that requires vast amounts of time & resources (nothing new there!). There are specialist departments that are going to be centrally based within a tri-force area - weapons training, dog unit, helicopter - traffic units departments. This is all with a view to the eventual Police Service that will serve the entire south-west. I thought you may have some practical suggestions for immediate cost savings (such as the scrapping of the PCC and his staff - annual savings in excess of a million a year) but perhaps not. Again - do you really believe that every Wilts Police Officer is "inept, incompetent and inefficient"? Or is this just hot air? politepanda
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Sun 12 Jan 14

allthedecentnameshavegone says...

politepanda wrote:
allthedecentnameshav

egone
wrote:
politepanda wrote:
allthedecentnameshav



egone
wrote:
The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.
What - all of them - all of the time?
And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they?
OK, as an example, each force operates as a stand-alone entitiy. This creates massive costs and essential functions are duplicated. Did you know, for example, that each police force has its own uniform, many in a colour shade that is unique to their force. This means that they cannon benefit from the buying power and economies of scale that would come from a common uniform. They cannot even one supplier buying a common fabric from which the different uniforms could be made.

Similarly, there is no common vehicl policy across forces. Massive savings could be generated in terms of purchase, maintenance and running costs if all forces agreed a common supply policy with one vehicle manufacturer for all of their standard vehicles, just buying the specialist vehicles from other suppliers where necessary. Imagine their buying power if they agreed to buy all of their panda and standard patrol and pursuit cars from, say, Vauxhall, instead of their current diveristy of supply. Their purchasing leverage would increase, their parts inventory would decrease and so would the training costs for their vehicle maintenance teams.

They could also centralise HR functions, they could challenge, rather than accept, their very high rates of staff sickness absence and they could take action against officers actng inappropriately rather than simply letting them retire on dubious medical grounds before their cases are properly investigated.

I could continue, but I think that's enough to answer your question.
No - not really - these are all issues being worked on - amalgamation is something, it seems - that various parties want but that requires vast amounts of time & resources (nothing new there!). There are specialist departments that are going to be centrally based within a tri-force area - weapons training, dog unit, helicopter - traffic units departments. This is all with a view to the eventual Police Service that will serve the entire south-west.
I thought you may have some practical suggestions for immediate cost savings (such as the scrapping of the PCC and his staff - annual savings in excess of a million a year) but perhaps not.
Again - do you really believe that every Wilts Police Officer is "inept, incompetent and inefficient"?
Or is this just hot air?
If you were to re-read my post, you will notice that I say "The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient." - nowhere do I claim that each individual within the organisation is inept, incompetent and inefficient, just that the organisation is. It's much the same as when the Metropolitan Police admitted being 'institutionally racist' - they weren't suggesting that every officer was racist, but was admitting that as an organisation it was.
[quote][p][bold]politepanda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allthedecentnameshav egone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]politepanda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allthedecentnameshav egone[/bold] wrote: The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. If properly managed they could deliver a significant increase in performance while slashing hundreds of thousands off their running costs. There is tremendous scope for cost savings and efficciency improvements and these avenues should be exhausted before an increase in their funding is considered. A rise in the police element, or any other element, of the council tax is wholly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]What - all of them - all of the time? And the "hundreds of thousands" in savings you feel you could identify - what are they?[/p][/quote]OK, as an example, each force operates as a stand-alone entitiy. This creates massive costs and essential functions are duplicated. Did you know, for example, that each police force has its own uniform, many in a colour shade that is unique to their force. This means that they cannon benefit from the buying power and economies of scale that would come from a common uniform. They cannot even one supplier buying a common fabric from which the different uniforms could be made. Similarly, there is no common vehicl policy across forces. Massive savings could be generated in terms of purchase, maintenance and running costs if all forces agreed a common supply policy with one vehicle manufacturer for all of their standard vehicles, just buying the specialist vehicles from other suppliers where necessary. Imagine their buying power if they agreed to buy all of their panda and standard patrol and pursuit cars from, say, Vauxhall, instead of their current diveristy of supply. Their purchasing leverage would increase, their parts inventory would decrease and so would the training costs for their vehicle maintenance teams. They could also centralise HR functions, they could challenge, rather than accept, their very high rates of staff sickness absence and they could take action against officers actng inappropriately rather than simply letting them retire on dubious medical grounds before their cases are properly investigated. I could continue, but I think that's enough to answer your question.[/p][/quote]No - not really - these are all issues being worked on - amalgamation is something, it seems - that various parties want but that requires vast amounts of time & resources (nothing new there!). There are specialist departments that are going to be centrally based within a tri-force area - weapons training, dog unit, helicopter - traffic units departments. This is all with a view to the eventual Police Service that will serve the entire south-west. I thought you may have some practical suggestions for immediate cost savings (such as the scrapping of the PCC and his staff - annual savings in excess of a million a year) but perhaps not. Again - do you really believe that every Wilts Police Officer is "inept, incompetent and inefficient"? Or is this just hot air?[/p][/quote]If you were to re-read my post, you will notice that I say "The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient." - nowhere do I claim that each individual within the organisation is inept, incompetent and inefficient, just that the organisation is. It's much the same as when the Metropolitan Police admitted being 'institutionally racist' - they weren't suggesting that every officer was racist, but was admitting that as an organisation it was. allthedecentnameshavegone
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Sun 12 Jan 14

politepanda says...

The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. Most definitely what you wrote - condemnation not of an individual - but an organisation.
"The Police are"
Not "The Police service is" Suggesting that you were slighting each officer.
So there are specific officers - because the organisation doesn't run itself - it's run by people - who are these inept, incompetent & inefficient individuals?
And again - any idea on specific immediate savings?
The Police are an excellent example of all that's wrong with many of our public sector organisations - inept, incompetent and inefficient. Most definitely what you wrote - condemnation not of an individual - but an organisation. "The Police are" Not "The Police service is" Suggesting that you were slighting each officer. So there are specific officers - because the organisation doesn't run itself - it's run by people - who are these inept, incompetent & inefficient individuals? And again - any idea on specific immediate savings? politepanda
  • Score: -2

8:28pm Fri 24 Jan 14

allthedecentnameshavegone says...

Inept, incompetent and inefficient people....
-those that decided that all but the smallest RTI's require the road to be closed, with no thought for the police costs or the costs to the wider economy due to commuters missing meeting etc.
-those on the ground that close the roads - why do they always close them 200 yards past the junction that allows and easy divertion,and instead force drivers to U-turn in the road?
-those that investigated the Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor cases.
-those that investigated the local Donovan Van Lil disappearance - did they ruin the life of an innocent man or fail to secure a conviction against a guilty man? Either way, hardly a shining example of efficiency and competence.
-those that shot Mark Duggan, Jean Chales De Menenez and Harry Stanley (the man shot for carrying a chair leg).
-the officer that 'unlawfully struck' and killed Ian Tomlinson during the G-20 protests.
-the officer from Melksham caught on cctv hurling a woman across the cell......

And why should I identify immediate savings? The savings I suggested have been plainly visible to all for many years, yet none have been implemented. It is the search for 'immediate savings' that negates the incentive to identify and implement strategic savings and efficiency improvements.
Inept, incompetent and inefficient people.... -those that decided that all but the smallest RTI's require the road to be closed, with no thought for the police costs or the costs to the wider economy due to commuters missing meeting etc. -those on the ground that close the roads - why do they always close them 200 yards past the junction that allows and easy divertion,and instead force drivers to U-turn in the road? -those that investigated the Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor cases. -those that investigated the local Donovan Van Lil disappearance - did they ruin the life of an innocent man or fail to secure a conviction against a guilty man? Either way, hardly a shining example of efficiency and competence. -those that shot Mark Duggan, Jean Chales De Menenez and Harry Stanley (the man shot for carrying a chair leg). -the officer that 'unlawfully struck' and killed Ian Tomlinson during the G-20 protests. -the officer from Melksham caught on cctv hurling a woman across the cell...... And why should I identify immediate savings? The savings I suggested have been plainly visible to all for many years, yet none have been implemented. It is the search for 'immediate savings' that negates the incentive to identify and implement strategic savings and efficiency improvements. allthedecentnameshavegone
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree