NZ Police public image

[Ixion]

[QUOTE=Pixie]

First thing is whether the ACC demand a pound of flesh from the police in exchange for the funding.

QUOTE]
Govt. says to LTNZ:reduce road toll (it gets votes)
LTNZ buys time from the police for enforcement.
Police set minimum value of fines to match money from LTNZ.
Police admin get on the back of frontline cops to meet tickets per cop quota.
LTNZ wants evidence of value for money from police.
Police wave wad of money at LTNZ and say:Look $40 million in fines.
LTNZ pats Rob Robinson on the head and says"good boy your' boys can have another $40 million for next year.
Govt. says "Good boy,Rob;you can keep your $400K job for another year.
Everybody's happy,get pissed and have a party!

Definately so with LTNZ. Not sure about ACC (Accident Compensation Corp)

[Ixion]

I don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer to the question I posed some time ago:
"Why do we need an LTSA?" (or LTNZ or whatever acronym is current - it will no doubt change again before long)

Or why we need a Minister of Road Safety, a Minister of Transport , and a Police Minister.

[scumdog]

IN THE LATE 90'S I WAS GIVEN A CHOICE BY MY EMPLOYER, COMPLY WITH AN IMMORAL REQUEST OR FACE DISMISSAL, I CHOSE DISMISSAL. PEOPLE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS, WE ALL KNOW THE POLICE ARE REVENUE GATHERING YET THE GUY ON THE COAL FACE CONTINUES TO DO ROAD SIDE TAX COLLECTORS,ITS UP TO THESE INDIVIDUALS TO SAY FUCK THE BOSS ILL DO WHATS RIGHT. IF SPEEDING WAS THAT SERIOUS HELEN CLARK WOULD NOT HAVE PERMITTED HER DRIVER TO SPEED, AND THE POLICE WOULD HAVE A LIMITED PURSUIT POLICY.
I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THIS BUT IN AUSTRALIA NT WAS THE ONLY STATE WITHOUT FATALITIES DURING EASTER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY STATE WITH NO SPEED LIMIT(CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG)

I was done for drink driving and I only had a reading of 420mgm, sometimes it's suitable to drive with that blood alcohol level, they're just revenue gathering by making the limit 400, why don't they give a bit of discretion?
(this is a PT in case WINJA can't figure it out)

It should be like in the U.S. where the fines go back into the state/county and they can set the fines/speed-limits etc, then you WOULD see revenue gathering and nobody would have an argument 'cos they would not be told any different!!

[Kickaha]

ITS UP TO THESE INDIVIDUALS TO SAY FUCK THE BOSS ILL DO WHATS RIGHT.

Define "whats right"

Whats right according to you? the guy next door? Brian Tamaki? Helen Clark?

I think everyone will have a very different idea of "whats right"

[spudchucka]

First thing is whether the ACC demand a pound of flesh from the police in exchange for the funding.

Yes, of course they do. They expect that their money will be used in the specified tasks that were agreed on when the funding was negotiated.

In a sense the drink driving operations are revenue positive for the ACC because reducing drink driving saves them money. That's good for everybody provided that they're not using their funding as a lever to influence priorities. Which I believe does happen with the LTSA.

Good point about being revenue positive. The way the funding is provided does influence prioities and outcomes because the cops assigned to ACC booze busses are tasked specifically with drink drive enforcement. They only divert away from these duties when there are no other units available to attend urgent jobs.

Since there's no direct revenue from drink policing I would think the public sentiment would not be so opposed.

The perceived harm of drink driving is widely accepted as being something that needs to be tightly controlled. The majority of the public accept that it is necessary.

But, I recall a few years ago there was a period when the police were doing a lot of breath testing at peak hours. The percentage of positives was minute, the public were annoyed, and even more annoyed when the police said that they had to do it because they were contracted to (I think) ACC to test so many drivers per month.

People often question the sense of testing for drunks at peak traffic times, early in the morning and teh middle of the day. I've picked up a good number of spectacularly drunk drivers at these times, you never know when or where they wil pop up.

Also the fact that testing can happen anywhere and at any time enhances the perceived risk of getting caught. It makes people think before drinking & driving. Its more of a prevention strategy than a get out and catch some drunks strategy.

What concerns me about (eg) the LTSA is that the funds come with conditions.

It concerns me too. What you end up with is a police service that is effectively controlled by third parties. Police must be able to operate independantly of direct outside influence, including that of central Govt. The mandate of polcie is of course set by Govt and police remain answerable to Govt but the day to day operation of the police should remain a police matter.

In essence I'm asking if the Police are calling the shots (" We , the police, have decided to have X coppers focused on drink driving. Will the ACC help fund that cost of that . You will, oh good") Or does the ACC call the shots (" We , the ACC , want to see Y hours of targeted drink drive enforcement . We will pay Z dollars for that. But you can't use the hours paid for by us for other police purposes").

As I see it it is somewhere in between the two.

Hence we have the Minister saying that the police funding is higher than ever before, and the police saying that they don't have the resources to deal with burglary and such like.

Almost all the new initiatives over the last few years have been directed at traffic. People need to ask Govt why general policing is not given the same priorities.

Or even simpler, instead of the government taking it off the taxpayer, giving it to the LTSA/ACC and the latter giving it back to the police, why not have the government give it directly to the police in the first place. And have them decide how much for booze buses, how much for general duties etc.

They would never go for that! Too many bureaucrats would be made redundant and end up on the dole cue, which would blow out our wonderfull unemployment figures.

[Holy Roller]

The perceived harm of drink driving is widely accepted as being something that needs to be tightly controlled. The majority of the public accept that it is necessary.

Still a mindset that a couple of boxes after work and then drive home is OK. The sober driver message seems to be getting thru. Only way to really stop it is peer pressure and random check points.
Still wont stop the silly broad who after a few drinks decides to go for a drive and is involved in an accident (my rant over)
Must be frustrating for the officers to man check points when other crime needs to be allocated. We hear that police are understaffed all the time yet politics seem slow in anwsering this issue. Yet here in the BOP the Police have seen a huge reduction in crime and more being solved, freeing up officers for more traffic duties I presume by the number and frequency of check points.
More power to them I say, they are doing a great job. They found the driver who did the runner after my accident after a couple of hours even though the car had no plates.

[Lou Girardin]

IN THE LATE 90'S I WAS GIVEN A CHOICE BY MY EMPLOYER, COMPLY WITH AN IMMORAL REQUEST OR FACE DISMISSAL, I CHOSE DISMISSAL. PEOPLE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS, WE ALL KNOW THE POLICE ARE REVENUE GATHERING YET THE GUY ON THE COAL FACE CONTINUES TO DO ROAD SIDE TAX COLLECTORS,ITS UP TO THESE INDIVIDUALS TO SAY FUCK THE BOSS ILL DO WHATS RIGHT. IF SPEEDING WAS THAT SERIOUS HELEN CLARK WOULD NOT HAVE PERMITTED HER DRIVER TO SPEED, AND THE POLICE WOULD HAVE A LIMITED PURSUIT POLICY.
I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THIS BUT IN AUSTRALIA NT WAS THE ONLY STATE WITHOUT FATALITIES DURING EASTER AND THEY ARE THE ONLY STATE WITH NO SPEED LIMIT(CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG)

Quite right, it's called moral courage. The courage to stand up and question actions you know to be wrong. The UK Police rank and file aren't scared to do so. Why are ours?
An example is Gregg O'Connor of the Police Association, he said this morning that Police were relieved that the situation with unallocated files has been made public.
If they're so bloody relieved, why didn't THEY bring it to our attention sooner?

[scumdog]

Yes, of course they do. They expect that their money will be used in the specified tasks that were agreed on when the funding was negotiated.
People often question the sense of testing for drunks at peak traffic times, early in the morning and teh middle of the day. I've picked up a good number of spectacularly drunk drivers at these times, you never know when or where they wil pop up.

Also the fact that testing can happen anywhere and at any time enhances the perceived risk of getting caught. It makes people think before drinking & driving. Its more of a prevention strategy than a get out and catch some drunks strategy.
.

Too right, my mate and I got a drunk driver yesterday who had two near head-ons in the distance they travelled before we stopped them - less than 4km!

Both other motorists involved stopped and thanked us for getting the drunk off the road.

Drunk driver blew 1224mgm on the 'machine' and it was 1:20pm on a Friday arvo!!

"I've only had three jugs over a four-hour period" - Yeah right! (Maybe it was bourbon?).'

Why do they come up with pathetic stories like that? Do they think the cop is going to say "Ooops, the machine must be wrong, I'll let you go and see you later, have a good day?"

[scumdog]

Quite right, it's called moral courage. The courage to stand up and question actions you know to be wrong. The UK Police rank and file aren't scared to do so. Why are ours?
An example is Gregg O'Connor of the Police Association, he said this morning that Police were relieved that the situation with unallocated files has been made public.
If they're so bloody relieved, why didn't THEY bring it to our attention sooner?

How soon was 'sooner' Lou? 1 file? 5 files?

Do you go to the media every time your 'boss' does something you don't like/believe in/think provides a poor service?

Don't feed the trolls!!

[Lou Girardin]

How soon was 'sooner' Lou? 1 file? 5 files?

Do you go to the media every time your 'boss' does something you don't like/believe in/think provides a poor service?

Don't feed the trolls!!

Ok. How long would it take for rank and file cops to get concerned. One year, two, ten?
As for my boss, I always have the option of resigning.

[Pixie]

[QUOTE=Lou Girardin]Quite right, it's called moral courage. The courage to stand up and question actions you know to be wrong. The UK Police rank and file aren't scared to do so. Why are ours?
Because they are chosen for their low intelligence and compliance.
Did you know an alarm goes off in Robinson's office if a cop has an original thought?

[Pixie]

I don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer to the question I posed some time ago:
"Why do we need an LTSA?" (or LTNZ or whatever acronym is current - it will no doubt change again before long)
Can anyone show convincingly that the LTNZ is more effective and more efficient than the old government departments which used to have its responsibilities?

(Just as I need convincing that NZQA has materially improved the state of education in this country...)

The road toll is shit
more men die of prostate cancer every year than die on the roads
why not throw some money at that for a change?
Of couse,no ones thought of a way to make revenue out of that one
and it might require a cop to stick a finger up some ones arse.

[spudchucka]

"Pixie", seems an appropriate name for someone that isn't yet a fully fledged Troll.

[inlinefour]

The road toll is shit
more men die of prostate cancer every year than die on the roads
why not throw some money at that for a change?
Of couse,no ones thought of a way to make revenue out of that one
and it might require a cop to stick a finger up some ones arse.

Pixie, IF THERE WAS NOT SO MANY STPID FAKING CUNTS ON THE BLOODY ROAD THEN MAYBE LESS REVENUE WOULD BE GAINED????
Really what sort of farking lame comment was that? "Oh, officer if you are going to make me pay for that ticket, then I'll hate all coppers for ever" <---------about as lame as that statement I think.
If more men got themselves checked for prostate cancer earlier, like they SHOULD, then less would die. Bit like your comment, its easier to bury one's head in the sand instead???

[Pixie]

Pixie, IF THERE WAS NOT SO MANY STPID FAKING CUNTS ON THE BLOODY ROAD THEN MAYBE LESS REVENUE WOULD BE GAINED????
Really what sort of farking lame comment was that? "Oh, officer if you are going to make me pay for that ticket, then I'll hate all coppers for ever" <---------about as lame as that statement I think.
If more men got themselves checked for prostate cancer earlier, like they SHOULD, then less would die. Bit like your comment, its easier to bury one's head in the sand instead???

Obviously any suggestion that cops are tax collectors hits a very raw nerve