Policing changes DEMO in East Dulwich

[James Barber]

Edited to add - the East Dulwich Police panel are holding a public VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in Ian McPherson who came up with the daft changes to Safer Neighbourhood Teams. 7pm Weds 27 July outside the Police station.

I've attached generic letter presented to the ED Safer Neighbourhood Team ward panel issued from [email protected]. Rather draconian centralist changes. Sad that our borough commander who proposed different changes keeping SNT intact isn't being allowed to manage his team or budgets. Process led by a senior detective interested in 'proper' crime.

As East Dulwich crime rate is now low East Dulwich SNT will share a sergeant with Village ward SNT with teams on duty at the same time rather than staggered and covering each others patch.

Each SNT will have their marked patrol and unmarked vehicles removed. Currently SNT are focused on crime prevention. The changes are that they will be on duty when crime occurs but with no vehicles to respond - I kid you not!

The team will also be more often 'extracted' for other duties, not just royal weddings and olympics but for example the next two weeks to address street drinking in Camberwell Green ward.

Effectively the SNT concept is being killed.

If you think this is wrong tell Ian McPherson and Boris Johnson ([email protected])- bizarre he's allowing this so close to mayoral elections. Ideally borough commanders should be left to command.

IT GETS WORSE. The Youth Offending Service is currently based in the centre of Southwark (Bradenham Estate). This service receives all Southwark's offending youths. It is planned to more this Southwark wide service to Crown House on East Dulwich Road in East Dulwich when the housing office is closed. They absolutely have to go somewhere. But 2/3rd of Southwark live north of Peckham Road. Moving a service to be remote from the bulk of its users appears to make little sense. uit's also making it harder for youngsters to attend appointments so more will default and be arrested.

If you think this is daft then please contact your local MP Tessa Jowell ([email protected]) who might be able to influence the Labour led Southwark Council to find other accomodation more centrally located.

[Jason]

Really worrying, to say the least

[KPinED]

James,

I understand that localism is a (largely commendable) part of your ideology, but I think "rather draconian centralist changes" is a bit of an exageration. It seems to me that the letter actually reflects a desire to make best use of available resources in line with the public's wishes. There seems to be little apetite for addressing the issue of police pensions and retirement ages; coupling this with easy political promises of maintaining numbers of "bobbys on the beat", the only real options to maintaining a service while reducing cost involve considering how to best deploy and manage staff. I also happen to think that the kind of flexibility that means that areas where there is greater need can be supplemented when necessary is an equitable thing to propose. I would have thought this would fit with the social conscience of the Lib Dems. Your concern for East Dulwich seems to be (although I appreciate that this is largely your job) an example of the vocal middle classes looking out for themselves.

[James Barber]

Hi KPinED,

Southwark's borough commander wanted to keep SNT entirely entact and use his budgets differently. New Scotland Yard has decided they know how to police Southwark better.

Execting SNT's to become more crime fighting than prevention but then deciding to take all vehciles away from them so they can't get to the scenes of crime quickly is perverse.

Agree some practices are daft. Why can't a senior PC manage a team of other officers. Having 1 sergenat and two teams means they must be on duty at the same time. As currently one week ED SNT and alternate weeks Village - losing that will mean big gaps in local Policing.

As for street drinking in Camberwell. They have SNT team there and community wardens. How much resource can it take to resolve street drinking problem and why does it need all the ED Police and Village effort to resolve as a time where we have burglary crime wave - 12 in June alone.

[DJKillaQueen]

These changes to the SNT via merging of wards have been on the table for some time and my own SNT team informed our ward of what might happen months ago. Be thankful ED is merging with Village and not the Lane.

My own experience of SNT policing anyway has largely been officers on bicycles and Police Support Officers on foot (even taking the bus sometimes) so I don't expect the removal of a car is going to have that much of a change. Patrol cars have never figured that highly in SNT policing.

The Police are always going to be able to respond to emergencies with vehicles anyway so don't understand the issue on that one.

Where there is an issue of course is less officers available per ward. SNT policing has been very effective on a local level, not just in preventing crime but also in terms of intelligence gathering. SNT officers tend to be more invested in local communities. Those are the points I think that should be made at the powers that be.

Regarding the Youth Offending Service. I am assuming there are financial reasons for the move. I'm sorry James but North Peckham to East Dulwich Road is hardly a trek around the globe. Also there are offending youths in all areas of the borough. Those south of Peckham Road will find the new centre nearer to them will they not? Smacks of 'not in my back yard' to me.

[James Barber]

Hi DJ,

YOS - moving from the centre of Southwark to East Dulwich means kids from Rotherhite, E&c will now have to trk to East Dulwich. 2/3rds of Southwark residents live north of Peckham Road (which is a rough line across the middle of Southwark). So moving this service so faraway from teenagers doesn't make sense. We want them to be able to stick to appoint times easily. They're in enough trouble as it is.

Not sure you read the first post on SNT. ED and Village SNT local police alternate to ensure local coverage. Sharing one sergeant will preclude them from doing that. So we will have much bigger gaps.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree that the reduced SNT coverage is a bad thing. I'm a fervant supporter of the SNT and as far as I can see there has been no consultation from Scotland Yard with local residents on cuts. I think they are underestimating the value of localised community policing.

On the youth service thing, do you happen to know what the driving reason for the move is? Is it financial? I'm not convinced that the increased travelling distance will impact as much on those using the service as you think it will. They are obliged to attend appointments because they are after all offenders. Where does it say we should make life as easy as posssible for those that get into trouble? So what if they have to take a bus/ train. They are perfectly capable of doing so, just like the taxpayers who go to work every day to pay for the service that you are arguing should be within as easy reach as possible.

[Green Goose]

James Barber Wrote:

>

> Effectively the SNT concept is being killed.

If the SNT comprises the "plastic policemen" that don't have any powers then we are better off without them. As a member of the public, I can do a citizen's arrest. They can't do anything more.

A waste of space. They are just as useless as the Community Officers that go round in red day-glo vests.

Why we should have to pay council tax to support these worthless 'services'?

GG

[DJKillaQueen]

You obviously know nothing about the SNT's then, because if you did, you'd know that every SNT has full Police Officers operating within it and I can give you plenty of examples and evidence of the positive impact that my local SNT has had within my local community.

Fundamentally they have replaced what formerly would have been the work of beat officers and are very much a worthwhile service. Or would you rather that all policing were 'after the event' and carried out by anonymous officers with no investment in the local community they serve? I know which I prefer and all the evidence says it works.