Do we really need URNs?

After considering the implementation of the new ACPO Policy, I decided enough was enough. The police are public servants who expect the industry to disseminate the effects of their draconian policy to our customers, the voting members of the public.

I wrote and advised our customers that the Police Service were proposing to implement a new policy, and requested they write to obtain a copy, for their own information. This resulted in a number of calls during January from administrators to note their displeasure and embarrassment as their policy had not yet been printed. I also wrote to Harry Cohen, MP, who in turn wrote to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.

It all adds up
I have since received a response in which the MPS has stated: "The cost of providing the unique reference number service, within the MPS, was calculated at £811,168 in 1999 and 30,000 new unique reference numbers were issued." The department that processes these URNs consists of 12 people. On the basis of the MPS calculation, the cost of each employee was £67,597.33, who issue on average 10 URNs per day. No wonder there is a six-week wait for URNs. Maybe it's time to call in a time and motion study! The response from the MPS also stated: "The unique reference number service allows alarm users to have direct telephone access to the police control room and a faster call handling procedure. Were this service not available, all alarm users would need to use the 999 system, to gain response..." Judging by the statistics for Police attendance, despite numerous undertakings, we may be better off with the 999 system, and to abolish URNs and thus spend the £811,168 on proper policing. Oh, but that would mean that the Police Service would not be able to operate a withdrawal system, nor provide us with ill-conceived upper and lower limits. So who does need the unique reference number service? Or is it just another money-making scam? It has become quite clear that the Police Service management prefers to concentrate on areas that provide additional finances.

During recent months, I have noticed a large number of new speed cameras being installed. Having spoken to various people within the Police Service, it appears that the 'black rats' (traffic division) of most forces are working flat out, with considerable overtime being worked.

Why is this? Have they just realised that speed kills? On the contrary, the Police Service now receives a financial reward from the Government for every prosecution.

Whatever happened to Peel's principles?
I do not condone speeding, but I do accept that speed cameras pose more of a hazard with drivers breaking hard before a camera, then racing to make up lost time before the next one.

  Electronic aids should be used to complement a police presence on the roads, which does prevent crime, and not as another money-making exercise. This is not in keeping with Sir Robert Peel's nine principles ... And these are:

• The basic mission for which the police exists is to prevent crime and disorder.

  ‘It has become clear that the Police Service management prefers to concentrate on areas that provide additional finances’

• The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

• Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

• The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to necessity of the use of physical force.

• Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

• Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

• Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence.

• Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

  Editor’s note ...

  For the benefit of readers who missed George Mullaly’s first article, here is a precise of his personal criticisms:

  • In its formulation of ACPO 2000, ACPO had disregarded the points raised by security industry representatives.
  • The industry had succeeded in reducing false alarms, but greater false alarm reduction could be achieved “by the police working with the industry not by their current approach”.
  • Site health and safety letters would be sent to existing sites requesting the information required by recorded delivery. Returned letters or failure to respond within 28 days would result in the site URN being deleted ... “Obviously a money making exercise”.
  • Why were dual detection devices “which can provide considerable reduction in false alarms” not more widely used?
  • The charge for URNs and use of premium rate lines for ARC calls to the police was “totally unacceptable”.

  (Although, not directly responding to this article,Kevin Mann of ACPO wrote an article setting out the ACPO position in last month’s edition ... Ed)