Safer Policing methods.

Considering it's well known a lot of men who should have been arrested are still 'at large',

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-10-30/rochdale-whistleblower-says-police-limited-abuse-investigation/

Perhaps a more cautious, american style of policing would be safer? A policewoman was injured when she approached a car full of five men, as described in the article.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/92225/officer-dragged-by-car-police-appeal-for-information

A more cautious 'step outside of the vehicle please sir' style of policing might be more realistic. Or maybe not, as that could invite more violence. A tricky one, armed and unarmed police have to use different procedures, but something needs arranging to prevent this kind of injury.

I wonder how many 'Police resources' will suddenly become available for this investigation.

Three men have been arrested on charges of attempted murder. Seems a fairly efficient use of resources so far.

"The car drove 150 yards while the offenders repeatedly punched the officer in the face before speeding up at which point she could no longer hold on"

http://www.gmp.police.uk/Content/WebsitePages/94CE80EA487BBEBA80257D82004F6F08?OpenDocument

Sounds pretty murderous, the sort of people it's worth spending a bit of resources to arrest.

I'll drink to that one as well. Er - bloody bottles empty - - - damn.

Hopefully a refill has arrived by now?

Cuts in Police budgets are taking effect, fewer policepersons. How will this change methods? Each policeperson will have to get more done. Police have had to spend a lot of their time doing paperwork, going to meetings, working through partnership procedures, meeting targets, being accountable.

If the police are to get as much crimefighting done, individual police officers will have to act quicker, more decisively and with direct authority. A lot of people won't like that. Maybe it's not a bad thing generally, although it might not be much fun to get on the wrong side of things.

Some don't like the photo database and face recognition technology, but, the Police seem keen on it, it works and saves a lot of time.

One way and another, policing is changing, will it be for the better?

Given we have no choice in whether we have policing or not or to what extent anything that makes the job more proficient and results in good justice will be beneficial. There will always be the 'wrong' sort of policeman. All one can do is weed out the rotten apples. A more transparent technology as in helmet cameras and face recognition etc etc can only be a good thing. One thing the public can do is to equip themselves with recording devices, especially audio, on which to capture the facts as they happen. That way will put the police themselves into a cautious mode when dealing with the public. The trick of course is to ensure the device isn't easily recognisable at the time. One fights fire with fire - only surreptitiously.

There are some small usb voice recorders, the size of a flash drive that might be useful for that, but whether they are any good I don't know. Gadgets that work properly and reliably are few and far between, often too fiddly and fragile.

Confidence in the police as an organisation is not as good as it could be. Police systems and processes need to be arranged so as to be accountable and apply universally, everyone should be policed to the same levels, including the police themselves as well as all the sectors of society which may be more difficult to police for various reasons.

Crime and fraud are very much a feature of or society, they can be complex and tedious to detect and prosecute, a lot of work has to be done, we have a very complicated, fragmented and hi-tech society now, it needs a police force updated in attitude, systems and resources to match.

Target based systems led to 'easy' crimes being prosecuted, systems need to promote the investigation of 'difficult' crimes.

Indeed. It's a minefield out there. Ergo - either don't go out or be careful where you tread. If it looks or sounds too good. It usually is.

Where does Mr. Trump get the idea that there are no-go zones in the UK where policemen dare not go?

There are plenty of video reports featuring British policing, showing the police being extremely reasonable, in some cases of crowd control, making strategic retreats, even apparently running away from angry crowds.

This reasonableness appears to be cowardice to the foreign observer, compared to USA and other police forces, who take no nonsense and stand their ground.

As for no-go areas, there have been video news reports showing 'sharia patrols' and the like.

It's all very well being reasonable, and perhaps better than over-agressive policing, but have the British police got the balance right, or are they giving the impression of weakness?

It's all a ploy. Reasonable behaviour begats reasonable response. Why inflame - until you have to?
Decades of street violence has at least taught the intelligent amongst the police forces that heavy handedness doesn't pay either in public acclaim or results. I have no problem with how things are at the moment. And there are NO - no-go areas where the police are concerned in this country. What there are are 'tread-carefully areas'. Completely different than the ignorance spouted by that right wing fascist who calls himself a potential American President. Potential scorned pillock if my guess is right.

Going too far either direction has pitfalls.

Mr. Trumps' ideas have caused some outrage here. Perhaps it's seen more as an electioneering strategy in the USA.

With our loss of, or 'pooled' nationality, we may forget independent nations can make their own rules, and many nations do. If the USA should decide to exclude muslims or mexicans, poor people, bald headed people or communists, we may not approve, but that's entirely up to them.

What's the point of a nation state if it cannot make it's own laws applying to it's own borders and territory?

A nation state has the role of social cohesion and security. The laws it makes can, if agreed by the majority, be anything it wishes always and providing it doesn't have to rely on other nations for its continuance and survival. I know of few nation states that are in such an invidious position in this world. Therefore whatever route that nation takes will have a bearing on others around it. Isolationism is a fallacy. A cruel delusion. And one that can cost dearly if taken.
Mountain-molehill this particular subject as, like the Corbyn factor here, it is rapidly going nowhere fast. The greatest danger, if one is looking for 'trouble ahead', is the French connection. Flash-point right. But let's wait and see.

There are contradictory opinions expressed about 'no-go' or 'tread carefully' areas for the British police, with reports of police being advised not to appear in uniform. Similar with army uniform, seen as provocative in some areas.

We are familiar with 'cultural sensitivities' hampering policing and prosecution of certain crimes in certain areas. The British approach to policing can seem over-diplomatic in some cases, and insensitive in others, in common with the NHS, which can be brilliant or awful, depending where and when, it's patchy and difficult to generalise.

Mr. Trump is in the mountain-molehill business, and seems to do very well with it in financial terms, how it will pan out in politics is wait and see. Seems to be quite a lot of wait-and-see going on at the moment.

The blonde-ginger nutcase will always appear as a saviour to the far left/right and lunatic fringe in ANY society. But when it comes to the crunch (votes) the vast middle of the road majority will bump him out - unless - that particular society is going through a traumatic period of grim austerity and confusion. (For a parallel see -Nazi Germany). I would say the USA is a prime candidate for such a thing to happen given the temperament of its society but ONLY if that society has a long period of WANT beforehand. Ergo - I can't see such a scenario in the offering at present or in the near distant future.