Jean, as confirmed quite frankly by Ealing Police, the presence of these officers is an example of what has been called "security theatre".Security theatre is the process by which people are encouraged to believe that SOMETHING IS BEING DONE, regardless of whether that something does anything to alleviate the issue which has been identified as a problem. In most cases of security theatre, the problem is made worse for all those who don't benefit from the charade politically and/or financially - see airport security since 9/11, which has had almost no public safety benefits, in fact may have increased the risk to the public, but has made some people very, very rich, and hugely increased the powers that states claim over their populations.Another example is CCTV in public places. Public authorities have spent millions of our money on CCTV, and although some are now cutting back, others continue to do so despite study after study showing that, outside of car parks, it has a tiny effect in terms of prevention of crime, and such a small effect on post-event detection as to make the costs of investment ludicrous. And that’s before one has even considered the huge change it has made to the powers of surveillance the state now has over the general law-abiding population. Popular, cheaply produced TV crime programs that cherry-pick examples of where CCTV has had an effect on detection are useful tools for the security industry to perpetuate the myth of CCTV’s efficacy in the minds of the public. A side effect of this is that the public is kept scared by the constant reminder that big baddies are out to get them and they in imminent danger (often in the face of actual crime rates suggesting the risk is decreasing) and they become less likely to question the increased levels of security (or security theatre) that permeate their lives. I suppose it keeps some people in work and black puffer jackets, even if their work is largely ineffective. And it allows politicians to tell the public that “SOMETHING IS BEING DONE”.The police volunteers may be an even worse example in terms of efficacy. They are about as much use as a scarecrow, but at least are cheaper in terms of direct costs [which reminds me, I'm still sore at the fact the manager of PoundWorld in West Ealing refused to sell me the big cardboard copper in their window, even after I upped my offer to three whole pounds].I used to read a few blogs written by serving police officers of various ranks. Most of them have been shut down now, but occasionally they’d gripe about specials and PCSOs. I got the impression (at least from the point of view of the individual officers who wrote the blogs) that they're almost universally resented and perhaps even despised by the warranted officers. Not necessarily through a fault of their own (though anybody who's dealt with them may well have found fault – my own experience of dealing with some of them in Walpole Park a couple of times was sad and pathetic) but because their existence is seen as a threat by the tribe of regular officers for various reasons. By which I mean a threat to the public, due to their lack of powers and training, and a threat to the warranted police constable, due to their lower costs.Of course some of these volunteers and “community” officers go on to apply for positions as warranted officers (assuming recruitment isn’t frozen). In that case their experience might be an added benefit. But that’s just a minor side effect, it’s not the main point.
M Duley ● 4769d