Sussex Police refused permission to raise council tax (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Sussex Police refused permission to raise council tax
4:00pm Friday 11th December 2009 in News By Ben Parsons, Crime Reporter
The Government is refusing to allow Sussex Police chiefs to raise council tax to get the money they say they need to put more officers on the streets.
Sussex Police Authority has been told its share of council tax will be capped if it claims a rise of more than 3% when next year's bills are set.
The authority – the panel of councillors, magistrates and lay people which oversees Sussex Police – was considering whether to raise extra cash to fund 31 new neighbourhood policing officers with a 3.77% rise which would bring average bills to £139.80 a year.
The new jobs would offset the proposed loss of 99 police officer and staff posts to help save £5.4 million in the next financial year.
The Department for Communities and Local Government wrote to the authority saying its budget would be cut if it proposed a rise of more than 3% on its share of council tax.
The option of raising council tax was put forward to fund a commitment made earlier this year to expand the number of neighbourhood police officers in the county.
The authority expects to face a £35 million funding shortfall over the next five years because government funding is not expected to meet rising costs.
At a meeting yesterday (THURS), authority members were told the force expect to have to make further cuts in officer and staff posts in the years to come.
Councillor Ben Duncan, who represents Brighton and Hove City Council on the police authority, said: “The Government is taking a very aggressive tone.
“We are seeing an unemployment crisis. In Brighton and Hove, in the last week alone, we have seen almost 1,000 jobs go.
“We are seeing the price of wars and the bank bail out coming home to roost.”
Chief Constable Martin Richards said after the meeting the chances of creating the new posts with a cap in place were 'remote'.
The authority is due to make its final budget and council tax decisions when it meets in February.
Comments(30)
Living in the real world
says...
5:35pm Fri 11 Dec 09
Michael S
says...
6:20pm Fri 11 Dec 09
.
http://www.sussexpa.
gov.uk/plans-and-pol
icies/index.aspx
.
or
.
http://tinyurl.com/y
edhu9e
.
Join Isitfair if you want to voice an opinion about council tax
.
www.isitfair.co.uk
Gubbins
says...
7:37pm Fri 11 Dec 09
A massive merger policy of Kent, Sussex and Hampshire would reduce the enormously expensive overheads and have no effect whatsoever on Police Officers on the beat. How about a new title; South Coast Police (SCS)
sussexone
says...
10:24pm Fri 11 Dec 09
remember you're a womble.....
jon s
says...
10:54pm Fri 11 Dec 09
££££
Hugh Rinall
says...
11:51pm Fri 11 Dec 09
Ashley
says...
1:15am Sat 12 Dec 09
jon s wrote:Not true, more's the pity, because more speed cameras would make the roads safer and would mean that only those that chose to break the law would have to pay the speeding fines.
They'll probably turn to the motorist now.ie;i few more speed cameras here,a few more speed cameras there.£££££££
££££
Gubbins
says...
8:56am Sat 12 Dec 09
Inspectors, Chief Inspectors, Superintendents, Chief Superintendents, Assistant Chief Constables, Deputy Chief Constables.
Start by looking at the true costs of their salaries, pensions, employers (council tax payers) national insurance contributions, allowances, holidays, expenses, training, support staff, offices, etc..etc..
You will find these figures staggering.
We do however need more Police Constables and Sergeants, they are the real front line and should be paid more.
Now if we look carefully at County Police Authorities, why do we need them ?
We have a central Inspectorate of Constabulary under the Home Office - another waste of money through duplication.
Come to think of it, if I remember correctly, Sussex has a Superintendent rank in charge of IT !!!! Mind boggling or what ?
jon s
says...
11:37am Sat 12 Dec 09
Ashley wrote:I wasn't that far off the mark,check out the congestion charge story.
jon s wrote: They'll probably turn to the motorist now.ie;i few more speed cameras here,a few more speed cameras there.£££££££ ££££Not true, more's the pity, because more speed cameras would make the roads safer and would mean that only those that chose to break the law would have to pay the speeding fines.
Gubbins
says...
1:16pm Sat 12 Dec 09
I agree, they must be made to change their costly organisational structure. They can't just keep lumping the extra costs on the already overburdened tax payer with disproportionate increases in parking charges, speeding tickets etc..etc..
Ashley
says...
6:10pm Sat 12 Dec 09
jon s wrote:Congestion charge is a different subject altogether - I was referring to speed cameras in response to your comment on same.
Ashley wrote:I wasn't that far off the mark,check out the congestion charge story.
jon s wrote: They'll probably turn to the motorist now.ie;i few more speed cameras here,a few more speed cameras there.£££££££ ££££Not true, more's the pity, because more speed cameras would make the roads safer and would mean that only those that chose to break the law would have to pay the speeding fines.
.
I don't care whether speed cameras raise money or not, they slow traffic and prevent accidents. And we all have a choice as to whether we pay the fine/tax.
.
If you don't want to pay, don't break the law - stick to the speed limit, simple.
Ashley
says...
6:27pm Sat 12 Dec 09
.
You make some good points.
.
In particular, I believe we should have a debate about having a national police force which would enjoy massive economies of scale.
.
It would also prevent county forces (chiefs) from competing to design and develop the best systems - in particular IT systems - to win kudos and thus reinventing the wheel at massive expense.
.
The main argument against such a move would, I think, be that there would not be local accountability and national policing would not take account of local policing needs.
.
Neither, in my opinion, are valid. We would have no less accountability than there is now and policing needs vary as much within a county as they do within the country.
.
There would still be 'regional' chiefs but all regions would use the same IT systems and admin processes instead of the current 43 different systems.
.
At present, the UK police service is like the UK rail network - disjointed, inefficient and not user-friendly.
jon s
says...
6:44pm Sat 12 Dec 09
Ashley wrote:You're preaching to the converted.I've got my own ways of wasting my money,but chucking it away on speeding fines isn't one of them.My general point stands,fleecing the motorist is council and government policy.Disagree with me and get the bus,then pretend you're a better person than me for doing so.
jon s wrote:Congestion charge is a different subject altogether - I was referring to speed cameras in response to your comment on same. . I don't care whether speed cameras raise money or not, they slow traffic and prevent accidents. And we all have a choice as to whether we pay the fine/tax. . If you don't want to pay, don't break the law - stick to the speed limit, simple.Ashley wrote:I wasn't that far off the mark,check out the congestion charge story.jon s wrote: They'll probably turn to the motorist now.ie;i few more speed cameras here,a few more speed cameras there.£££££££ ££££Not true, more's the pity, because more speed cameras would make the roads safer and would mean that only those that chose to break the law would have to pay the speeding fines.
Gubbins
says...
7:38pm Sat 12 Dec 09
Nobody believes there is an intention to fleece the motorist, the motor car is an integral part of the national economy. It's certainly not part of any Councils policy. However, it may have become an easy target for weaker councils who are unable or unwilling to put forward tough proposals for real change.
@ Ashley Sussex. I agree, we need a proper debate about 'economies of scale' If you lead, I'll follow (honestly) with any input within my skill level and knowledge.
Allow me to open the batting:
Police chiefs who compete for Kudos in things like IT only do so because their budgets are too generous. Imposed cuts change behaviour ! Only weak management prevents this logical step.
Your second point about "local accountability" does not stand up. We (the tax payer) employ senior police officers to manage their contractual obligations at a very high cost. As in industry, they go (sacked) if they can't or will not meet those obligations.
As for communications interoperability between forces, I fully agree with you.
Your last point about the police service being 'user friendly' is okay until we consider the type of people they have to deal with !
Ashley
says...
9:55pm Sat 12 Dec 09
.
You state:
"Police chiefs who compete for Kudos in things like IT only do so because their budgets are too generous. Imposed cuts change behaviour ! Only weak management prevents this logical step."
.
It is my opinion that the budget is not too generous, but that senior officers pare too much from front line and protect admin and management posts. Just look at the HR vacancies being advertised in Sussex Police at the moment, despite front line posts being cut.
.
I think you misunderstood my point about accountability (or I misunderstand your response). I think that local accountability would be just as achievable with a national force as it is now with county forces. Your opinion?
.
By not being user-friendly, I was referring to things like: what phone number do you dial to make a non-emergency call to police when you are in Devon or Greater Manchester or Lincolnshire? All different. Should be the same.
.
The point I think you make about the people they deal with is very valid. On another article currently running on this site: http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/4790172.S
ussex_Police_defend_
detention_facilities
_after_Hove_mum_s_de
ath/ police are being criticised entirely unreasonably, by a coroner who clearly has no idea about how the system actually works (or doesn't work).
.
Police will always be the butt of complaints because most who are arrested feel they have been harshly treated.
Gubbins
says...
7:58am Sun 13 Dec 09
I agree, a national police force is not a problem regarding local accountability.
The real problem lies in the rank of Chief Constable. Britain would in effect only need 'regional chief officers' Though you and I may agree on this, it would be robustly opposed by the establishment.
However, the benefits would be immense, standardisation of IT, procurement of vehicles, training, to name just a few. It would also set in place firm limits for support staff ie. ratios of civilian support staff to front line officers.
I also believe it would be better for Britain as a whole, each regional force would be subject to standard and common policy on things like diversity, recruitment, promotion, inspection, communications and complaints procedures.
As for those who become 'customers' to any police service, raise the threshold criteria for complaints to be followed up.
It's simply too easy for the public to tie-up hundreds of hours of police time and resources with spurious and inane moans and groans about what nearly always amounts little or nothing of significance.
Darling2
says...
1:48pm Sun 13 Dec 09
Gubbins
says...
4:05pm Sun 13 Dec 09
So do you agree or disagree with Ashley and me on how REAL savings can be achieved ?
With the level of achievable savings we've been talking about, PCSO' would not be needed or, they could be trained further, given proper warrant cards and make a real difference on the streets. Otherwise I agree with you. Come to think of it, Special Constables have more power (warrant cards) than PCSO's and they're unpaid volunteers ! Confusing or what ?
Ashley
says...
6:54pm Sun 13 Dec 09
.
I think there is little more to say - you and I are of one mind!
.
Darling2 - in this case I agree with you. The service would be better if PCSOs were removed and replace with half the number of police.
.
As for Special Constables, I have always believed that PCSOs should never have been introduced and that the role of the Specials should have been expanded, rather like the role the Territorials play in the Armed Services. Same powers, same uniform, same management structure.
.
Instead, PCSOs have limited powers, different (but confusing) uniform, different training and often not the same commitment to public service.
Ashley
says...
11:15pm Sun 13 Dec 09
Gubbins,
.
You stated:
"It's simply too easy for the public to tie-up hundreds of hours of police time and resources with spurious and inane moans and groans about what nearly always amounts little or nothing of significance."
.
I had to comment on this important point....
.
I agree with you entirely that it is too easy for disgruntled members of public to make false allegations against the police. Such allegations are incredibly expensive to investigate and often ruin lives and careers even though they are unfounded.
.
BUT, there must be a facility to investigate allegations against police as there ARE police who make wrong decisions, act unreasonably or unlawfully or are corrupt.
.
These days there are VERY few who fall into the latter category - the police service is now highly regulated.
.
I truly do not know the answer to this question - I do not know how you prevent or deal with false allegations whilst maintaining an open and transparent service.
Gubbins
says...
8:18am Mon 14 Dec 09
The problem lies with their contracts of employment, just make it easier and quicker to sack (without pension) corrupt police officers. There are so few poor officers now, it would have no effect on the service as a whole.
At present, enormously complex procedures have to be adhered to and it takes far too long to get rid of a bad apple.
Ashley
says...
1:39pm Mon 14 Dec 09
Interesting comment. I would disagree only in one respect.
.
I don't think there is a problem with the contracts of employment, I think there is a problem with 'management' within police forces.
.
Ranking police officers often do not have the employment knowledge or relevant skills to deal with employment issues (which is understandable - they are police not HR or personnel officers) and the civilian HR departments are inept. HR within the public sector are, in my opinion, self-perpetuating, empire building, nerds.
.
Another recognised problem is that police who under-perform are often promoted to solve the problem.
Gubbins
says...
4:10pm Tue 15 Dec 09
Our opinions possibly differ slightly at this point.
HR departments in public service are by their nature inefficient because they are not there to influence the business itself. They simply provide a 'process' within the requirements of the law.
Likewise, senior managers in the police service who are serving officers do not see themselves as broad based general managers over a wide skill base eg. HR. To them, inefficient policemen become someone else's problem as they view HR as being the 'experts'.
The problem is, senior policemen make highly complex rules and regulations regarding discipline and inefficiency and then appear to just chuck it over the wall to HR and tell them they are the experts now get on with it.
Both sides need to take a leaf out of private industry's book.
Managers are there to manage and that means the whole business and not just the bits they like.
Support staff (HR) are there to enable the business by providing timely and quality advise when needed.
They are not there to just process paperwork in isolation to everything else within the business.
Ashley
says...
5:41pm Tue 15 Dec 09
.
Very interested to read your views.
.
I don't disagree with any specific points you make - I would sum up my opinion by saying that I think that ranking officers are too often more interested in thinking up the next 'big-idea' (often just change for change's sake) to obtain their promotion.
.
This will usually lead to their promotion, either because it is accepted (by other ranking officers) as good - so they've earned their promotion, or because it was a disaster (common) and they are promoted out of the department.
.
They often then do the same in another department and continue their career, unchecked, in this way.
.
During such career paths, basic man-management of the 'troops' is not seen as important and is neglected as it will not alone lead to promotion.
.
In general, both police and support staff would do well to take a grip of each other i.e. the organisation but neither does.
.
To have an organisation that is run by both civilian and police staff and that operates efficiently and effectively, there needs to be an effective synergy of civilian and police managers.
.
Although comparisons can be drawn with other organisations, fire, ambulance, armed forces, etc., I truly believe the police service is unique, given its place, role and responsibilities. For this reason I believe such a synergy is more difficult to achieve in the police service than in any other organisation - but nevertheless possible.
.
However, I believe we are a very long way from being able to say the police have achieved such a synergy.
.
I don't know how close that is to your take on things?
Gubbins
says...
6:12pm Tue 15 Dec 09
It's also about on the money for where my thinking has been on all public service organisations over the past 15 years.
kayotic
says...
1:39pm Wed 16 Dec 09
Gubbins wrote:What do you mean?? BECOME too boring!!
Good debate Ashley, can't really add much more as it would only become too detailed and boring for others to read. It's also about on the money for where my thinking has been on all public service organisations over the past 15 years.
Gubbins
says...
3:31pm Wed 16 Dec 09
Thank you for your valued contribution to this highly complex problem ! Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer a view on those areas which we do not have quick and easy answers to ?
Ashley
says...
4:31pm Wed 16 Dec 09
.
What a pity that others - like Kayotic for example - cannot join in a put opposing views or question what you or I or others have said, in a mature, constructive and meaningful way.
.
It is easy to make off-the-cuff and 'clever' comments and to spout ill-informed rhetoric but it usually demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the system/process/organ
isation works or what the problems and requirements are.
.
Every medium has a down-side, the problem with the www (and in particular the Argus comments pages) is that any half-wit can use Google and quote the law or the result of a published survey or report, without understanding it or having any idea what it really means.
.
It also gives the world and his wife the opportunity to see their ill-considered, spontaneous and often bigoted blatherings published for all to read.
.
I have had a few so-called debates with such people on these pages. Damned good sport though!
.
Thanks for the (proper) debate gubbins.
Gubbins
says...
5:14pm Wed 16 Dec 09
tombraider59 says...
4:47pm Fri 11 Dec 09