Police officers on the beat in Norfolk.
Norfolk Police Authority decides to invest in policing in the county by increasing council tax precept by 3pc
PETER WALSH, Crime correspondent
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
2:28 PM
Members of Norfolk Police Authority have today decided to increase the council tax precept for police by 3pc to allow the chief constable financial flexibility to protect Norfolk.
In agreeing their final budget before being abolished to make way for a directly elected Police and Crime Commissioner, the police authority decision amounts to an extra 7 pence per week for a Band A taxpayer and 11 pence per week for a Band D taxpayer.
Vice-chairman Robin Chapman explained the dilemma which faced Members. They could accept the Government’s offer of a one-off £1.7million additional grant in return for freezing the Council Tax precept - or they could continue their long-term approach of investing for the future.
Mr Chapman believed the Authority should take the long-term option: “By doing so, we allow the chief constable to reduce the impact of the central Government cuts on the frontline abilities of the Norfolk Constabulary when they may well be needed most.
“Phil Gormley has indicated he would be able to preserve more of the Police Community Support Officers and ensure some expansion of the Safer Schools initiative work which Members have seen so demonstrably successful in places where these officers are currently deployed.
“Additional support for the vulnerable, especially the elderly, would also be possible if we invest now.”
After the meeting, Mr Gormley said he was pleased with the decision because it meant he could better plan to keep Norfolk people safe and protect them from harm.
He said: “My aim is to protect the number of officers and PCSOs in our Safer Neighbourhood teams to keep Norfolk people safe.
“A one-off grant does not allow me to do that as people cost money over the longer-term, ie, they are a recurring cost.
“I made it clear to Members that I would be able to better protect some of the initiatives that they most value, including our work in schools and with vulnerable people, if they decided to increase the precept.”
Stephen Bett, police authority chairman, said the wide consultation carried out prior to the meeting returned overwhelming support from the county to increase the precept.
He said: “The authority has worked tirelessly over recent years to improve policing in Norfolk and it has done this with considerable success – performance has turned around, we are the safest county in England and, compared to some other forces, we are in a position of relative strength.
“Today’s decision will help us to preserve frontline policing in the face of massive public spending cuts - a position that we could not have envisaged but one that our foresight is now assisting us to hedge to the advantage of Norfolk people.”
45 comments
Dear Daisy Roots, How do you work out that making a comment about a Norfolk County Council project that will probably affect the cost of policing in Norfolk, under an article that is specifically talking about police funding - and how much we all have to pay for it - is 'highjacking'? But as you raised the subject, the incinerator won't be 'only' as polluting as an average industrial installation, as the average industrial installation is not designed to pump over 500 tons of waste matter into the atmosphere every day for twenty five years. As for your point about house prices, they will fall anyway if it is built, as they do around every incinerator. Would you buy a house downwind of an incinerator? If so, please contact me in the unlikely event this monstrosity is built, 'cos I'll be selling! (So that will be one less household in Norfolk to pay the council tax precept)
Report this comment
Barking
Friday, February 24, 2012
Well CJT-Larson we all know villages routes which are impossible to bypass, where there has been infill and building and then everyone who has moved in wants a lower speed limit. A nice 30mph makes planners look more favourably on building applications too. But how did we get on to speed limits- the debate was this lot wanting more of our money to pay their salaries and keep toytown civilians masquerading as police on the streets. We should be demanding effectiveness appraisals ,from the Police Authority down to the newest recruit. Where is the high profile scrutiny of their performance as endured by health and education professionals?
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Friday, February 24, 2012
***" a vociferous parish council can get a speed limit if they try hard enough."*** . Ms Roots , can you name a single resdidential area , village or town where the citizens are demanding a higher speed limit outside their properties ? . No. What they want are the present limits more strictly enforced or lowered.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Friday, February 24, 2012
Anti incinerator hijacking! If it is built I hope it turns out to be no more polluting than the average industrial installation. The people of Lynn may regret the fuss made when they want to sell their houses to anyone from out of the area -the first thing Lynn will show on a google search will be the pages about the incinerator and the claims about the expected pollution. Instant devaluation whether it is clean as a whistle or not.
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Friday, February 24, 2012
The police will need all the money they can get if Norfolk County Council manage to force the incinerator through (unlikely). You can't ignore 'the people', threaten their health, and not plan to cope with the resulting direct action. I doubt Cory Wheelabrator would want to spend any of their profits on security. It would be yet another hidden cost of the incinerator.... We'll all be expected to pay. NCC have already spent £2.5 million trying to foist this project on an unwilling population in the last two years. It's time they used common sense, abandon the project and start to build an appropriate waste system.
Report this comment
Barking
Friday, February 24, 2012
So "larson" you have never driven along an A road with pavements either side and wondered why there is a 30 mph rather than a 40 mph ? Only to realise of course that a vociferous parish council can get a speed limit if they try hard enough. And never wondered why the police seem to enforce some speed limits on a regular basis and not others? And never wondered why if they are mopping up road accidents on a regular basis in certain locations they don't bring all the pressure they can muster on local councils and highway authorities to change them? I have no objection at all to speed limits but some of them are illogical and the positioning of some speed cameras seems calculated to catch those who have left it just a few yards late to adjust their speed. If the crucial point is where the camera is, why not extend the limit? Or add a 3,2,1 countdown to a limit as in other counties in order to do the safe thing of reducing traffic speed rather than catching speeders.
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Thursday, February 23, 2012
I take it from that Dave boy you do not have a single rational argument to put forward. Speed freaks always get very annoyed when their predudices are challenged with facts and supporting evidence.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Daisy "Just as there are those who think some parish councils overstepped the mark where Asbos were concerned" Bradwell parish council never overstep the mark, Infact they never walk round the mark. Thinking about it nobody knows what they do, it is like a secret society, vacancies are given at the pat on the back
Report this comment
"V"
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Roots :***" *Try the Ormesbys-absolutely used to do the hedge and fence hiding there. "****. And i understand store detectives hide themselves in shops instead of wearing flourescent jackets with " Security " written on them. Shocking behaviour ....its not giving the law breakers a fair chance.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Try the Ormesbys-absolutely used to do the hedgeand fence hiding there. And yes it was probably what the parish council wanted but whether it was justifiable on road safety grounds is another matter.There are some who would say the extension of the 50 mph zone to include the dangerous exit from Ormesby St Margaret onto the A149 might have been a better thing to aim for. Just as there are those who think some parish councils overstepped the mark where Asbos were concerned- and PCSOs seem to come in the same breath as those. The things I hear people saying is that they want effective policing, not necessarily more officers and certainly not PCSOs. What exactly is it that they are doing that makes them indispensible?
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
In 30 years of driving i have never seen a single policeman hiding in a hedge. But if they were they would be doing what the public want . Poll after poll shows the great majority support the use of speed cameras and a Home Office study into antisocial behaviour showed that concern about about speeding motorists was the No. 1 complaint in residential areas.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Where are all these police hiding in hedges ? Am I driving in the wrong areas to take advantage of witnessing this act ? I do see camera vans parked in a layby in our village ready to catch those people driving above the speed limit who are thereby breaking the law and probably putting other peoples lives at risk. Stay within the law and you cannot go wrong.
Report this comment
ALED
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Funny I have been driving round Norfolk for ten years now and never been hounded by the Police. Am I missing out on something or going wrong somewhere ?
Report this comment
ALED
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
On the BBC website today there is a story that 30 police officer posts will go to enable PCSO numbers to remain static. This does not seem right. The police should be out there nicking villains, if civilians are employed, it should be to free police officers up to be out on the streets policing, not attending partnership meetings etc.
Report this comment
kiwidog
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Good to see the issue has generated a debate. Just a few facts. With cuts of up to 25M pounds on the back of 20 percent central gov't grant reductions there IS going to be reduced numbers. Already down by 120 PCs plus 15 PCSOs + 134 staff and more to come over next 4 years. Decision to tax at 3 percent means police element of CT rises from 191.16 pounds to 196.92 pounds per household, per year at Band D - less A to C. More E to H. Taxing locally raises income base and reduces impact of central cuts. That allows NPA to stem the outflow of some frontline personnel. PA consulted on options of take one-off grant OR increase CT by up to 3.9 percent. Reaction from open consultation (publicised in EDP etc) and via NPA website (you could even respond online) was mostly neutral or supportive of the CT increase. All wanted "more officers". The equation does not stack up. Safest County in England. Accredited figures. Chief putting resources where and when service demands - not based on populism - shows a need. Insurance premiums will reflect that and save Norfolk people hundreds of pounds per household. Work done by Roads Policing and Constabulary generally (+ county highways) shows massive reduction in number of killed and seriously injured on Norfolk roads thus saving, in cold economic terms, national taxpayers millions of pounds. More could be done - but not with reduced budgets. There is loads more and for those who genuinely want to know and understand the significant issues the NPA website and budget report has hours of informative reading. If only things were as easy and simple as some people make out....
Report this comment
NPAman
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
"V" : ."**** Motorists are easy targets and each "catch" is classed as cleaning up crime in their stats "***. Yep...no insurance , disqualified , drunk , drugged , no MOT , no road tax , dangerous driving , speeding etc. All crimes and i am delighted to see the police " cleaning " them up. Of course if you don't want to be an " easy " target you know what to do.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
On the BBC website today there is a story that 30 police officer posts will go to enable PCSO numbers to remain static. This does not seem right. The police should be out there nicking villains, if civilians are employed, it should be to free police officers up to be out on the streets policing, not attending partnership meetings etc.
Report this comment
kiwidog
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
On the BBC website today there is a story that 30 police officer posts will go to enable PCSO numbers to remain static. This does not seem right. The police should be out there nicking villains, if civilians are employed, it should be to free police officers up to be out on the streets policing, not attending partnership meetings etc.
Report this comment
kiwidog
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Frankly I really resent paying Council tax to pay PCSOs to stroll along chatting miles from where anything is likely to be going on. Two PCSOs would go a long way for paying for a proper police officer.
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The performance of individual officers needs to be under the same sort of scrutiny teachers face from ofsted. I often wonder whether the root cause of the whines about paperwork is low academic ability. How they spend this money is also of concern-would flashing signs provided by councils be more effective than random speed vans sited where it is easy to park not where there is a real problem? Would we rather see them going after the JCB ram raiders than taking a troop of officers to break down doors in the early hours for a few £s worth of weed? Or tracing where all the stolen power tools and lead and heating oil are being disposed of? As for PCSOs-the job specs are that they be fit and can use MSOffice- no minimum academic standards yet they are sent into schools where the staff usually have to have a degree before dealing with kids. And as liaison in the community-where is the proof of ability to have reasoning and communication skills? A bit of a review of what we expect for our money is needed.
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Larson E Whipsnade. Well arn't you a goody two shoes then. Law breaking motorists deserve what they get ?. Yes I agree, but when plod pull you over for no good reason, or drive in front of you doing 40 in a 60 limit then it is hounding and persecuting. Motorists are easy targets and each "catch" is classed as cleaning up crime in their stats. Like "all smiles" said, They only solve crime if it has got a number plate attached.
Report this comment
"V"
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Larson E Whipsnade. Well arn't you a goody two shoes then. Law breaking motorists deserve what they get ?. Yes I agree, but when plod pull you over for no good reason, or drive in front of you doing 40 in a 60 limit then it is hounding and persecuting. Motorists are easy targets and each "catch" is classed as cleaning up crime in their stats. Like "all smiles" said, They only solve crime if it has got a number plate attached.
Report this comment
"V"
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Haven"t seen a Beat Copper (real one , not a PCSO chocolate one) for years. Only seem to solve crime if its got a number plate attached nowadays. Would be good to see some increased Police presence but I won't hold my breath
Report this comment
All Smiles
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Unfunded police pensions?!
Report this comment
nameless
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Please let us know how much we are paying as tax payers for unfunded pensions in the police force. Then we might be able to judge where cuts could be made
Report this comment
weaversway
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
"V"*****So an extra 3% to hound & persecute motorists eh ?******* I have never been " hounded " or " persecuted " by the police in my life. Not once . That's because i obey the road traffic laws. Speed freaks and other law breaking motorists deserve what they get.Typical that people who want the full force of the law brought down on vandals and robbers want law breaking motorists treated with kid gloves , despite them killing more in a year than every burglar since records began.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Dave 123: Speeding motorists kill and seriously injure hundreds of people each year , but accoring to Dave this is not a real crime. Try telling that to the next of kin.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Bookworm ( or Norton et al )*** " yes Norfolk police hound motorists "****. Not if they obey the road traffic laws. Those that don't deserve everything they get.
Report this comment
LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Ahhh i wondered where the dosh was coming from to pay for those useless camera vans! Perhaps if they spent money on crime fighting and not puppet Police we would actually achieve something!!
Report this comment
dave123
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Mr Gormley you are totally out of touch with the people. We dont want PCSO's with no powers protected to attend council meetings and youth clubs and other administrative tasks. We want Real Police Officers on our Streets to tackle Crime !
Report this comment
Farquarson-Smythe
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
.....by increasing council tax precept by 3pc.....Unbelievable! the police have accepted less than the 'theoretical' maximum. Bett can now truthfully say he is no pushover when it comes to dealing with the police.
Report this comment
popeye
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The police could save fortune if the pubs closed at lunchtimes and opened at 7pm, not all day as it is now plus bring back the off licience and stop supermarkets selling beers, wines and spirits altogether. I don't mind that they are asking for more money but it would be nice to see a few more beat bobbys as I haven't seen one for over a month!!!
Report this comment
Karen Henry
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
To A Fine City. Couldn`t have put it better myself. I think the Coaltion made a mistake in not banning current police authority members from seeking election to the post of Police Commissioners. What is the point of Mr Bett becoming a police commissioner? It would be just more of the same. We want a change, not a continuation of the same old cozy relationship.
Report this comment
BG
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
To A Fine City. Couldn`t have put it better myself. I think the Coaltion made a mistake in not banning current police authority members from seeking election to the post of Police Commissioners. What is the point of Mr Bett becoming a police commissioner? It would be just more of the same. We want a change, not a continuation of the same old cozy relationship.
Report this comment
BG
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Interesting headline. Could have been written by Stephen Bett himself. The EDP is compromised by its support for the police authority and opposition to police commissioners. How long before they back Stephen Bett to be the first one? Place your bets now... you heard it here first.
Report this comment
a fine city
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Or is it just to pay the nice little pensions that they get
Report this comment
turnover
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
yes Norfolk police hound motorists i agree.this time of year the sun is low and one can't see them hiding in the hedges.
Report this comment
bookworm
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
i agree wes--thats why we pay more tax and get more police. the crime rate was very low in Norfolk until a few years ago.
Report this comment
bookworm
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Quote - "Stephen Bett, police authority chairman, said the wide consultation carried out prior to the meeting returned overwhelming support from the county to increase the Precept." First I have heard about this! Just who did he ask and why was any consultation not made public. Don`t recall reading about that in the EDP.
Report this comment
BG
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
This is the cost to Norfolk tax payers of the latest reoroganization which the Chief constable was forced to carry out because previous reorganizations by his predecessors, sanctioned by Mr Bett, were such a disaster. Operationally and financially.
Report this comment
BG
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
More migrants,more crime.More council tax to pay the police to catch the bad guys.
Report this comment
wes1975
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
So an extra 3% to hound & persecute motorists eh ?. Will the money go on proper policing or will it be spent on hobby bobbies and plastic coppers ?.
Report this comment
"V"
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Stephen Bett on his election soap box again! Massive public spending cuts means massive numbers of people out of work, i.e. no money to pay another 3%! Can Mr Bett assure the tax payer that all this money will go on front line policing and not on increased allowances or a pay rise for Mr Gormley who is already handsomely paid?
Report this comment
smithrob
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
hi bookworm - do you fancy being knocked down by a speeding driver? I don't
Report this comment
biglingers
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
City council 0% - County council 0% - Police 3% - now there's a surprise (not!) This police increase has dwarfed the councils for several years. Watch this space - how long before we get a seperate bill? Anyone remember what happened to your water bill? Used to be included!
Report this comment
biglingers
Tuesday, February 21, 2012